Sitting of 12 February 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Fishing Crews (Safety)
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to modify the regulations governing the occupational safety of the crews of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels fishing in and outwith United Kingdom territorial waters. [13018]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The occupational safety of crews in United Kingdom fishing vessels is being pursued through the development of regulations to implement European Union health and safety directives.
    Dr. Godman: May I remind the Secretary of State of the death of a Scottish fisherman caused by an unsafe winch? At this very moment, a court case is under way relating to the disgraceful and tragic foundering of the Pescado.
    Will not European Union directives on occupational safety be extended to the fishing industry in the near future? May we have a debate in the House on those regulations? More important, why does the hon. Gentleman not anticipate them by instructing fishing vessel owners to ensure that survival suits for all crew members are carried on their vessels?
    Sir George Young: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate in the House. Any regulations would have to go through the usual procedures. He rightly pointed out that a trial is under way in, I think, Bristol, so we must be careful in what we say. It is true that, in the maritime sector, the United Kingdom will have to implement the framework and 10 relevant daughter directives, including a specific directive on fishing vessels, which build on the existing domestic regulations that apply to fishing vessels. It is a matter to which I attach a high priority. I should like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's specific point about maritime suits.
    Mr. Dunn: Is it not necessary for the Government to ensure that not too great a burden is placed on fishermen? Should not a balance be found that ensures practical guidance to enable fishermen to go about their business properly and in safety, while at the same time not placing too many burdens on them?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the potential costs of compliance. A cost
    636
    compliance assessment will be published with a formal consultation document on each directive. That document will be an opportunity for both the owners and those who work on the fishing vessels to comment on what is proposed.

    A419
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the bypasses on the A419 for (a) Blunsdon and (b) Latton. [13019]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The A419 Latton bypass is included in the first tranche of DBFO—design, build, finance and operate—contracts and preparatory works have already begun. The A419 Blunsdon bypass scheme has been placed in the longer-term category. It is too early to say when it may be rolled forward into the main programme.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the villagers of Latton will be delighted to hear that, at long last, they can look forward in the near future to relief from the heavy vehicles that have pounded through their village for so many years? I ask my hon. Friend not to forget the villagers of Blunsdon, who live athwart the same road and who, in my view, are entitled to the same consideration. I urge on him the hope that, in the not too distant future, those villagers will get the same sort of relief.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that all schemes on the route are extremely popular with the communities that they are intended to serve. The Blunsdon bypass was at a very early stage of its preparation and not ready to be included in the tranche of DBFOs, which include three other schemes on the route. The longer-term category means that a scheme will possibly be required at some future date but is not of sufficient priority to be proceeded with at the moment.

    Roads (London)
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the relevant local councils in London about the effect on their local environments of his Department's major road schemes on which work has already started; and if he will make a statement. [13020]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We hold regular discussions with local authorities as part of the process of designing, developing and constructing all road schemes.
    Mr. Cohen: After saying that the M11 link road through my constituency was an urgent matter, fighting with demonstrators at great cost, evicting local people from their homes and demolishing those homes, will the Minister explain why the Government have halted the programme and left the route a mudheap? The leader of the council has described the situation as the worst of all worlds and the Civic Society has said that the Government seem to have a vendetta against Leytonstone. Why does his Department's policy make the art of the absurd look like social realism?
    Mr. Norris: We remain convinced of the merits of the excellent Hackney M 11 scheme. It will provide the link from the docklands to the motorway system, relieve communities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of the intolerable pressure of traffic from which they suffer—he and I know about that at first hand—and give us the opportunity to do a great deal of work there that will much improve conditions for local residents. Tenders for the next two contracts in the scheme—contracts 1 and 3—are to be invited in a few weeks' time in April. Work is on-going. The scheme will be completed and the funding for it will be provided.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the decision to defer the Henlys corner scheme, which is part of the north circular road scheme, was welcomed by many residents of the area? Indeed, if he comes forward with a more modest scheme, he will be even more popular than he is today.
    Mr. Norris: I always welcome invitations not to spend money, but on this occasion I fear that, for once, I shall disappoint my hon. Friend. In the fulness of time, we will complete works on the north circular road, because only when the scheme is complete will all Londoners receive the full benefit of that internal bypass through London, which can help to remove so much rat-running traffic, not least through my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on bus deregulation in the Burnley and Pendle area. [13021]
    Mr. Norris: Deregulation has brought great benefits to bus travellers in Burnley and Pendle, as it has to those elsewhere in the country. Generally, there are more operators running more bus miles at lower cost, with new buses on many routes, and involving significantly less public subsidy than before.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the Liberal-controlled Pendle council's sale of its 50 per cent. stake in Burnley and Pendle Transport to Stagecoach will mean that Stagecoach will have a virtual monopoly in the running of transport in the Burnley area? Should that not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will the Minister confirm that whether Burnley council should sell its 50 per cent. stake is completely for it to decide?
    Mr. Norris: Far be it from me to intrude on private grief, but, as it happens, the regulatory authorities—not my Department—are satisfied that there is no impediment to Pendle council's sale of its stake. The position that Burnley chooses to adopt is entirely up to it. It is under no compulsion to sell, although logic and common sense should have advised it to sell a long time ago.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Minister accept that bus deregulation has led to serious problems in Burnley and Pendle and, indeed, in many other cities and towns? Will he join us in discussing the appropriate shape of re-regulation in Burnley and Pendle and elsewhere with the bus industry, local authorities and passengers, so that
    638
    we can develop a stable, long-term framework for the bus industry over the next decade? Does he agree that the need for an expanding bus industry should be placed over short-term, ideological dogma?
    Mr. Norris: One of the hon. Gentleman's endearing characteristics is his ability to get to the point about five months after everybody else—not least, these days, members of his own party, who, in their local authority guise, and as members of the bus working group which I chair, have agreed with me on a way forward. It is significant that neither they nor the all-party Select Committee report on the bus industry proposed going back to the old days of regulation, because it is recognised by all that those were not days to which anyone interested in developing the bus industry would wish to return.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the promoter for the channel tunnel rail link. [13022]
    Sir George Young: We expect to announce soon the name of the winning consortium in the competition to select a private sector promoter for the channel tunnel rail link.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be more than aware of not only the battering that the current promoter, Union Railways—a British Rail subsidiary—has taken from people in north-west Kent in relation to the possible damage to the environment but the opportunities in terms of jobs, and so on, that are to be gained from the Ebbsfleet station. Is he aware that we need a decision now on a promoter so that we can ensure that our environment is safeguarded and, above all, that the opportunities deriving from Ebbsfleet are realised as soon as possible?
    Sir George Young: It is an important project for the nation—it has been supported by both sides of the House—and for my hon. Friend's constituents, who will gain access to a quick link to St. Pancras station. As I said in my initial response, we hope to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. Timms: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he makes that announcement, he will also announce the Government's decision on intermediate stations? Will he further confirm that, in making that decision, the Government will honour the commitment made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1991 that the rail link will bring economic regeneration to east London?
    Sir George Young: It is indeed my intention when I announce the name of the successful competitor to make a simultaneous announcement about the locus of Stratford and the CTRL.
    Mr. Chidgey: Will the Secretary of State please assure the House that, when the channel tunnel rail link is constructed, it will allow the operation of large-gauge

    639
    freight trains and that links will be made to allow them to operate on an improved and upgraded west coast main line track?
    Sir George Young: My understanding is that there is an optional provision for loops for freight traffic. The link is primarily intended for passenger traffic into St. Pancras.
    Ms Short: Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government's obsession with rail privatisation has caused long delays in the building of the channel tunnel rail link, and that those delays have meant prolonged blight for many families and a failure to use the opportunity created by the channel tunnel to get more freight on to the railways? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House more about the allegations of financial misbehaviour at Union Railways? Is he aware that the national joke is now about train delays being caused by thieves on the line?
    Sir George Young: On the hon. Lady's first question, had we not engaged in dialogue with the private sector, and if the project was to be financed entirely by the public sector, it would have taken significantly longer to be realised.
    As for the second point, the hon. Lady will have seen the announcement made last week by Union Railways. I have asked the chairman of Union Railways to keep me abreast of the progress of the investigation. I have no further comment to make at this stage.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his criteria for the future funding of new capital public transport provision in metropolitan areas. [13023]
    Mr. Norris: Funding criteria are set out in Department of Transport circulars 3/89 on section 56 grant and 2/95 on transport policies and programmes guidance to local authorities, both of which are in the Library.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that the scheme for a tramway in Leeds meets the criteria set down by his Department, and that it has the support of all parties in Leeds and strong support from the private sector? Will he assure us that, when he comes to decide on the future funding of the tramway in Leeds, he will bear in mind the length of permission issued by the House for its construction?
    Mr. Norris: We do indeed recognise that the tram system in Leeds fits well within the package of measures proposed by the authority. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when we met the week before last, the weight of demand on available resources meant that we could not fund the scheme this year. Not least among those demands was the Midland metro, which received the go-ahead this year, and the prospect of our entering into a similar commitment, subject to the quality of the bids, on the Croydon tramlink. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not least among our considerations are the time constraints laid on Leeds by the statutory process.

    Capital Projects (London)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the most cost-effective capital projects he has planned for London; and when each will be implemented. [13024]
    Mr. Norris: The Government's annual report on expenditure on transport over the next three years will be published next month. We are also preparing a document for publication later in the year specifically setting out our transport strategy for London.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that one of the most cost-effective capital facilities in London would be a central London river service, the capital costs of which would be but a fraction of the £80-odd million costs of the single station on the Jubilee line at Westminster? Will he confirm that he received a report about a year ago from the transport on water working party, of which the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and I are members, which advocated such a service?
    Will he further confirm that he expects to receive a report from London First this week? Does he agree that the best features of those reports should be sent to a working party to see how effective such a project would be in the interests of visitors and Londoners alike? Would not the installation of such a service be a permanent memorial for the millennium, whatever might happen to other millennium celebration services down the river?
    Mr. Norris: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for the considerable effort and expertise that they brought to the Transport on Water proposals for a river service on the Thames. The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about such a service, and I hope that he will accept by way of an answer today that, from the day in 1931 that Sir Alan Herbert mooted the idea of a river service, a great many people who have uttered the immortal phrase, "We should do more about transport on the river," have run up against the practical difficulties that anyone operating such a service at anywhere near financial viability encounters. That being said, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government office for London has, with my distinct approval, invited London First and KPMG to study the business case for passenger transport on the Thames. They are, as the hon. Gentleman says, due to report shortly. I will consider their findings in detail, and I hope to be able to take matters forward from there.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that capital investment programmes for public transport in London are at a record level, and that, even if the Jubilee line extension project were excluded, investment would be about 10 times more today than it was in 1979?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That frequently embarrasses the Labour party, but it is one of those uncomfortable statistics with which it will have to live. My hon. Friend's constituents are a long way from the River Thames, and, although they would no doubt appreciate such a service, they might query the wisdom of providing a large public subsidy for a service that, by definition, few would be able to appreciate. We must

    641
    compare the costs of such a project with the demands from his constituents and many others throughout London for more investment in the bus and underground rail infrastructure.
    Mr. Tony Banks: If the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) is entirely right, why are there so many clapped-out old buses on London's roads? I suggest that the Minister go outside and see how many filthy and dirty old buses that should have been taken off the roads years ago are belching out fumes and suffocating tourists and Londoners. It is all right for the Minister, who goes around in an air-conditioned chauffeured limo, but those who have to breathe the air know how filthy it is. How much has been spent on new buses in London during the past 12 months?
    Mr. Norris: I have it on fairly good authority that my chauffeured limo is not as large as that of the hon. Gentleman when he was chairman of the Greater London council, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies in precisely that direction. The other day, I looked at a table that showed the tremendous increase in orders for buses nationally that the private sector has been able to institute. The table provided a rather invidious comparison with the very poor record of the industry when it was under national control in 1985. In London, the largest single trial of cleaner fuel buses has been undertaken at substantial public expense by London Transport Buses, and was inaugurated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Channel Tunnel and Midlands Rail Link
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposal of Central Railway for a new rail link between the channel tunnel and the midlands. [13025]
    Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations about the Central Railway project.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the anger and frustration among large numbers of my constituents at the continuing refusal of Central Railway to make clear either the likely environmental impact of its proposals or the possible effect they will have on existing passenger rail services? Can he impress on the company that it must either take seriously its obligation under statute to public consultation, and to provide details soon of its proposals, or withdraw the proposals completely and relieve my constituents of the blight that is afflicting them?
    Mr. Watts: No application has been made so far. If the company proceeds with its intention of making an application, it will be required to include an environmental assessment in the deposited information. The guidance about Transport and Works Act 1992 applications stresses the importance of proper consultation with local authorities and other affected bodies.
    Mr. Grocott: Should not talk of new rail links on old routes remind the Minister and the Government of a salutary lesson? Just 30 years ago, the vandalism of the
    642
    Beeching era and its obsession with so-called market forces resulted in the closure of many lines that would have provided priceless means of communication today. Will the Minister give an assurance that, whatever happens to the privatisation of British Rail, no significant route miles will be closed? Will he also assure us that routes of lines that have been closed recently will be protected? As sure as eggs is eggs, one day they will be needed again.
    Mr. Watts: I recall that the Beeching approach was a policy continued by the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970, who closed more route miles in that one period of office than any other Government have done.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Given the uncertainty that Central Railway appears to have shown in regard to the exact route of the line—for instance, having stirred up residents of South Nutfield in my constituency by telling them that the line would go through their village, it subsequently discovered that it would not—will my hon. Friend look askance at any future applications from Central Railway for waivers, and bear in mind the need to produce detailed and adequate maps so that local authorities and other local people who are affected can have a proper look?
    Mr. Watts: I assure my hon. Friend that, if any application for a waiver is made, details will be placed in the Library of the House. We shall also consult the local authorities that would be affected about the adequacy of the information to be supplied.

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he has met to devise through ticketing provisions on the west coast main line between various operators. [13026]
    Mr. Watts: None. That is a matter for train operators, who must comply with the approved through ticketing arrangements under the terms of their passenger train operators' licence as granted by the Rail Regulator.
    Mr. Olner: The Minister's answer will disappoint many commuters in my constituency of Nuneaton. My local railway station is served by trains from Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Holyhead; if there is no through ticketing agreement between the various operators, all the stations on the route are likely to be closed. Will the Minister undertake to get involved to ensure that the network and my constituents are protected?
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman's constituents should not be disappointed. The licence condition is that train operators should maintain the current service at the 1,300 stations that are capable of issuing through tickets. The regulator will permit variations from that only if he is satisfied that a higher, not a lower, standard of service will result. The hon. Gentleman's constituents should be reassured: through ticketing can only become better on the privatised railway than it was on the so-called publicly owned and publicly accountable railway.
    Mr. Mans: Now that the Opposition transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), has made it clear that she prefers nationalised railways and wants those that have been moved into the private sector moved back as soon as possible, will my hon. Friend ensure that the west coast main line moves into the private sector as soon as possible, so that, at the next general election, people can see the benefits of privatisation as they are already seeing the benefits of the Stagecoach service to Weymouth?
    Mr. Watts: We intend to bring forward the franchise for the west coast main line in the course of this year.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister share the Prime Minister's surprising view that fraud involving hundreds of thousands of pounds represents no more than misbehaviour which should not be allowed to stand in the way of the privatisation dogma? Does he recognise that problems with through ticketing are part and parcel of the same problem that gives rise to fraud by one operator against the others—the fragmentation of the railway network? Will he join the Rail Regulator in at least apologising for the near collapse of the national rail inquiry system? Fraud, the collapse of the information system and the near collapse of through ticketing are all the results of fragmentation. Which of the three does the Minister defend?
    Mr. Watts: I note that the hon. Gentleman adds a good few noughts on to the end of any figures that have been quoted as the possible cost of the irregularity on the London-Tilbury-Southend line, which was discovered very rapidly as a result of the routine procedures that were put in place for the privatised structure.
    Ms Short indicated dissent.
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady shakes her head. She continues to mislead the public in her interviews, when she knows very well that what she has said is not true.
    Ms Short: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I take points of order after questions.
    Ms Short: Is it in order for the Minister to say that what I said was not true?
    Madam Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own comments in the House, as we all are.
    Mr. Watts: I was referring to the hon. Lady speaking through the broadcast media. What I have said is true and fair comment.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) speaks of fragmentation, but even he should understand that the network, in the ownership and operation of Railtrack, remains integrated. Fragmentation, in the way in which he uses the term, means nothing more than the provision of services by a number of dedicated train operating companies.

    River Thames Working Group
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times the River Thames working group has met in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement on its work. [13027]
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest programme of initiatives to recommence a riverbus service on the Thames. [13029]
    Mr. Norris: The River Thames working group has met once in the last 12 months, on 11 July, to consider progress on the recommendations contained in its report published in December 1994 and it will meet again this week on 15 February. My hon. Friend will know that the group was set up to examine the potential for developing freight and passenger traffic on the river.
    I continue to support the idea of a riverbus service on the Thames. My Department, as I said in an earlier answer, has sponsored the preparation of a study by London First, with KPMG, on the potential for new passenger services. I look forward to the results of that study being published.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my hon. Friend accept that, with the minutes ticking away to the millennium, the unique opportunity of establishing a central London river service as a permanent monument and lasting benefit for Londoners becomes daily more pressing? Will he undertake, as a matter of urgency, to bring together the best of the proposals made to him, including the distinctive ideas put to him by the Transport on Water working party with the aim of achieving a river component of a through ticket travelcard transport system for Greater London in good time for the next century?
    Mr. Norris: I certainly undertake to consider carefully the proposals that the London First study produces, and to seek to find whatever agreement is possible between its report and that which the Transport on Water working party, of which my hon. Friend is a senior representative, has submitted to us. I will not repeat the caveats that I have already suggested must exist in respect of such a service. My hon. Friend speaks of integration into the travelcard system; if he were to talk of integration on the same fare basis that exists for buses and the underground, it might be a different proposition from the idea of incorporating the service into the travelcard system. On that latter front, I know that Peter Ford, the chairman of London Transport, has shown a willingness to consider ways in which we could, perhaps through that mechanism, achieve much wider awareness of riverbus services.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to both the earlier questions on this subject, now that the London First report has been published, we have all the research that we need. We have three catamarans, owned by P and 0, idling in St. Katharine's dock ready to do the job. Can the Minister—I put this as a serious proposition, because there is huge interest in the issue—collect together the authors of the report, the Port of London authority, the National Rivers Authority, London Regional Transport and interested hon. Members from the locks at one end down to the estuary at the other, to find out whether he

    645
    can sort out the difficulties that remain? Some people need a kick up the backside and the Minister needs to kick them, but the report suggests that it can be done and we need to get around the table to work out the best and most economical way of doing it.
    Mr. Norris: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's continued interest in this subject. He will acknowledge that I am keen that we should produce concrete proposals to build on the work of the studies. I have accepted that if that requires the involvement of my Department, or, indeed, other sources, it is a proposition that I would be prepared to consider. We have all been seeking to ensure that there should be a service that is, ostensibly at least, viable at the operating level. If that can be established—the early work seems to show that it can—I believe that we have the ground on which we might be able to build.
    Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will know that the River Thames does not flow close to Leicestershire, but he and I share much the same attitude to the scheme for river transport. Will he confirm that, when he produces proposals, he will study closely the question of enabling legislation, particularly in relation to piers? With the last scheme, if one caught a boat at Chelsea Harbour, the next stop was Charing Cross. That was a ludicrous situation, because invariably one had to use some other form of transport. Will my hon. Friend look into that closely?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the major weakness of previous schemes, which is that they have had to rely entirely on sufficient stopping-off points linking with the public transport infrastructure. In other words, one has to have a system which takes people where they want to go. The transport on water study, and KPMG, for London First, identified the number of locations that it will be necessary to consider. It is not appropriate to elaborate at this point, but my hon. Friend is right in his observation.
    Miss Hoey: Does the Minister agree that thousands of people are frustrated every day as they sit in traffic jams and watch an empty M11 wind its way through London? Further to the question of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does the Minister agree that we also need a change in planning so that, if planning permission is to be given, any major office development along the river must include the building of a pier?
    Mr. Norris: As to the first half of the hon. Lady's question, I am not sure that I agree, because all the studies show that the river is a very inefficient mechanism for conventional commuting—it does not go in a straight line, it has a 7 m rise and fall, and there are many technical difficulties with establishing such a service. There is, however, a market for a service using the river, particularly building on its tourism potential, which could be valuable for London, Londoners and jobs in the capital.
    On the hon. Lady's second point, about the desirability of ensuring that the planning process is sufficiently tuned always to consider the potential of the river when riparian applications are considered, she is entirely right. The Thames working group, which was established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, is taking that matter forward.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines and advice he has issued to (a) manufacturers and (b) purchasers of buses about access for disabled people since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.[13028]
    Sir George Young: The Department of Transport has set up working groups with both manufacturers and operators of buses to discuss the regulations that will be drawn up under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Also, we shall shortly be publishing the first in a series of information bulletins which will report the progress that we are making in implementing the transport provisions of the Act. Bulletins will be circulated widely to manufacturers and operators, as well as to local authorities and disability organisations. When regulations are made under part V of the Act, we will issue separate detailed guidance to all those affected.
    Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Secretary of State recall that, during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill and the two similar Back-Bench measures, there was substantial demand from people with disabilities for buses to be made much more accessible to them, as well as for the spin-off benefits for young parents with push chairs, people with heavy luggage, and so on. In passing, does the Secretary of State agree that the bus industry often gives the impression of turning passengers away, rather than trying to attract them? Can he assure the House that he will keep up the pressure on that issue, given that, when measures to help people with disabilities have passed through the House before, the provisions have often been left on the shelf to gather dust?
    Sir George Young: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is a subject to which I attach high priority. He is right to point out that it is not merely the disabled who will benefit from the particular features on the buses. They will help many other people, including women or men with young children, and the elderly. He will be pleased to know that 90 per cent. of new buses now have at least some of the features that were recommended by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DIPTAC—and which make it easy for ambulant disabled and elderly people to use the buses. I hope to see further progress.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smooth driving of buses is of the utmost importance for disabled people, and will he emphasise that to all involved in driving buses?
    Sir George Young: Yes.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that the enthusiasm he expresses does not seem to be shared by the Government? It took us several months to persuade the Government to include access for disabled persons to buses in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Will the Secretary of State tell us why he cannot present a timetable today, and why he is not using parts V and III of the Act so that disabled people can gain access to buses, trains, bus stations and rail stations?

    647
    Will he accept that, on the evidence, one of the obvious reasons for the Government's stalling is the chaos caused by bus deregulation and the equal chaos caused by the Government's determination to privatise rail transport?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Member will know that transport infrastructure is covered by part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We have introduced implementation dates for those parts of the transport industry for which the technology exists to achieve accessibility. For example, for rail rolling stock, the implementation date is 31 December 1998. For other transport modes, there are a wide variety of possible solutions, some of which will be available earlier than others. I will bring forward implementation dates as soon as we and the industry are satisfied that they are achievable and sustainable.

    Central Line
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the cost of upgrading the Central line. [13030]
    Mr. Norris: London Underground's latest estimate is that the total cost of upgrading the Central line will be £802 million at October 1995 prices.
    Mr. Congdon: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that enormous investment will lead to the provision of extra trains during the morning and evening peaks? Will he also confirm that, in the current year, more than £1 billion will be invested in the London underground, and that that is in sharp contrast with the figure four times lower in real terms which was invested by the last Labour Government? Does that not show that the Conservative party is the party that is committed to London transport for the benefit of Londoners?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. The 35 per cent. increase in operating performance is a result of the substantial investment in the Central line and, of course, there is more to come throughout the system. I remind the House, as my hon. Friend invited me to do, that in 1978, for example, the level of investment—at 1995 prices—was £198 million, while the same figure for 1995 was £1, 088 million.

    Rail Employees
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of changes in the total work force following privatisation of the railways. [13034]
    Sir George Young: None. Staffing levels are a management matter for the railway industry.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State admit that one of the main ways in which the new, privatised railway companies intend to make money is by getting rid of staff? Many women already find it difficult to travel on trains late at night because of the de-staffing of stations
    648
    that has already occurred. They are worried about crime. That situation can only get worse unless we can guarantee that staff will be in place to protect passengers.
    Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the announcement by Stagecoach on Monday, when it took over one of the newly franchised services. It has decided to invest £3 million in improvements to station and passenger facilities, including security, lighting, waiting rooms and information services. If companies want the public to use their trains, they must provide a secure, efficient and safe environment. I believe that that is what the private sector wants to do.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that privatisation and holding down fares will get more passengers on to trains, and that that will work wonders for employment on the railway?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right that it will not only improve employment prospects but improve security for other passengers.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to discuss access to public transport. [13036]
    Sir George Young: My Department has regular meetings with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the transport needs of disabled people. I will be seeing the chairman on the day of the June quarterly meeting.
    Mr. Howarth: Is it the case that the draft European directive on bus and coach construction would prevent the Government from requiring that buses and coaches be made accessible to disabled people? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will insist that the terms of the draft directive are altered so as to ensure, as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that as soon as reasonably practicable buses and coaches are made accessible to people with disabilities?
    Sir George Young: I am very anxious that there should be no obstruction to extending access to buses by disabled people. Further discussions and consultations will take place on the European directive to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Child Care
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects provision of on-site child care facilities to be made available in the House. [13050]
    Mr. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): In the light of a survey of demand for child

    649
    care facilities, and following a debate in the House, the Commission decided to introduce a child care voucher scheme in April 1995 for its staff. It provides financial support to qualifying staff who wish to use any of a range of child care facilities at locations which they find convenient. So far, the responsible domestic Committees have not be able to identify a suitable location for on-site facilities in the parliamentary estate, and have not put forward any proposals.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that answer is unbelievably pathetic? The House can apparently manage to find a great deal of money for the refurbishment of the Strangers' Bar, Annie's Bar and the refreshment and dining facilities that are provided ad nauseam, often for private catering, while the only children's facilities in the entire building consist of one shelf of out-of-date children's books in the Members' Family Room. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that we should get into the 20th century before the 21st century overtakes us and provide a fully staffed on-site nursery in this building for Members' and staff's children just as any other sensible institution would provide for its staff?
    Mr. Beith: I do not think that the staff using the child care voucher scheme find it pathetic; indeed, they find it helpful. The hon. Gentleman's other points must be passed on to his hon. Friends serving on the Committees that I mentioned.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the work of his Committee and on providing a voucher scheme for nursery education? I wish that he could encourage some county councils to do the same thing. Has he found that people using the vouchers prefer to send their children for nursery education close to their homes rather than to this building, which may be a long way from their homes?
    Mr. Beith: Some people find it more convenient to use facilities nearer to their homes. The Commission hopes to establish the general picture when it reviews the scheme next month, a year after it came into operation.

    Listed Buildings Legislation
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made in the last 12 months for compliance with the law relating to listed buildings. [13055]
    Mr. Beith: Financial provision for conservation requirements is included as part of the cost estimates for individual new works and maintenance projects.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety caused by the appearance in the House—temporarily, one hopes—of replacement internal doors which look like a job lot purchased at a do-it-yourself store on a wet Saturday afternoon, and also by the flashing red industrial-type lights which appear in the corridors during Divisions? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that at all times our concern will be
    650
    less for the exercise of bureaucratic zeal and more for our obligations as custodians of Parliament as a priceless part of our national heritage?
    Mr. Beith: The House has a good and improving record of attention to the conservation requirements of this important building. I am pleased to say that one of the doors, within my sight at this moment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred has already been replaced by its original. The House staff pay careful attention to the need to keep the fittings and furnishings and the building itself in good repair.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the listed status of the building impose any additional costs or difficulties when replacing the plumbing? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on reports made earlier in the year that some listed bacteria were present in parts of the hot water system? Can he assure us that, as a result of action taken, there is now no danger of Legionnaire's disease being present in the hot water system of the House?
    Mr. Beith: I have been advised that there is no danger of Legionnaire's disease being present in the hot water system of the House. However, I shall arrange for a detailed written reply to be given to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the problem arose because of the listed status of the building.

  TRANSPORT

    Road Accidents
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths and injuries there were arising from road accidents in 1995, 1994 and previous years. [13037]
    Mr. Norris: The number of people killed and seriously injured in road accidents has fallen from the 1981–85 baseline average of 80,130 to 50,181 in 1994, and provisionally to 49,778 in 1995. Slight accidents have increased from a baseline of 241,782 to 265,008 in 1994, and provisionally to a similar level in 1995. That is immensely encouraging, given that the volume of traffic increased by 44 per cent. during the same period.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome the general decline in the accident rate. Can my hon. Friend say whether the introduction of speed cameras has had an effect? If so, will he give the House an assurance that speed cameras are positioned on roads where there are likely to be accidents, rather than where they are likely to lead to the greatest revenue?
    Mr. Norris: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. For example, as a result of the west London trial, the number of deaths in that corridor has been reduced from 21 to 7. That evidence is compelling. However, there may be evidence that the longer a speed camera site is in operation the less it is respected. That is a common phenomenon with this kind of installation. The Government will monitor the situation with care.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, any revenue received from fines levied as a result of offences detected by speed cameras does not go to the police but to the

    651
    Exchequer in the normal way. Speed cameras are located at accident sites when all other conventional traffic calming and safety measures have been exhausted. They are designed solely to reduce the number of accidents. That is why the Government have insisted that there be large signs to warn motorists that they are entering a speed camera area>

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that Railtrack provides improved access and facilities for disabled passengers at railway stations under its control. [13039]
    Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend will be bringing forward regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which will require that all new trains be accessible by disabled passengers. Stations are covered by the requirements of the Act, which gives a right of access to disabled people.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister appreciate that removing staff from stations, as is happening at the moment, makes many stations inaccessible? There is no point in having a ramp installed at a station if no one is there to put it in position. Many disabled passengers are being disadvantaged by that situation.
    Mr. Watts: Some train operators have on-board ramps, which are operated by staff on the train. As a result, access can be provided even at unmanned stations.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that facilities for the disabled have improved since privatisation of the British Airports Authority and British Airways? Does that not augur well for the privatisation of British Rail?
    Mr. Watts: It does not surprise me in the least that services to passengers of industries which have been privatised have improved. Like my hon. Friend, I look to the privatisation of the railways to improve the situation further.

    Public Transport (Manchester)
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about public transport in Greater Manchester. [13041]
    Mr. Norris: Public transport in Greater Manchester is primarily a matter for the local authorities and the operators concerned. Subject to financial constraints, the Government will continue to consider funding worthwhile public transport schemes in Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the MetroLink in Greater Manchester has been a huge success? However, if it is to thrive it needs to have four or five lines added. Does the Minister welcome the current consultations about extending the MetroLink towards Tameside? However, it is no good having permission to build the extra lines if the money is not forthcoming.
    Mr. Norris: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we believe that the viability of the system and its
    652
    usefulness to Manchester is greatly enhanced as it expands, but I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that affordability is the key constraint. I cannot give him a commitment at this moment as to the funding of extensions to the system which already have statutory approval or those which are in various stages of preparation, but I can say that we shall continue to consider them as part of the package of proposals made by Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Jenkin: With regard to public transport in the Manchester area and the effect of fraud in relation to public transport, has not the greatest fraud been the great nationalisation experiment perpetrated by left-of-centre Governments, which has failed, and should we not look forward to the end of nationalisation?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The bus industry has never thrived as it thrives now, entirely in the private sector, and long may it prosper. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention that all the criticisms so often levelled by the Labour party at the railway system in this country are criticisms levelled at a nationalised railway, and that outside this place the general public cannot wait for the advantages that the private sector will bring to enhance the quality of rail services.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Privy Council
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to review the functions and role of the Privy Council. [13057]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Lord President consider taking powers to abolish the Privy Council oath? Does he appreciate that that arcane mumbo-jumbo of an oath has now been totally devalued by the Government's failure to entrust my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the Scott inquiry report on Privy Council terms for a period during which he could read, digest and absorb its contents? Does he agree that the Privy Council oath is justified only on the rare occasions when approaches can be made to the other side in politics on Privy Council terms, but that on this occasion the Government have failed to do so? Is it not time that that arcane oath was abolished and done away with because it is absolute nonsense?
    Mr. Newton: No.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not highly appropriate that a recent oath was uttered by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?
    Mr. Newton: I did not quite catch that question, but my hon. Friends obviously think that the answer is yes. I shall take further advice.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Procedure Committee Reports
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reports from the Procedure Committee are awaiting debate on the Floor of the House. [13059]
    Mr. Newton: In the current Parliament, the Procedure Committee has produced 17 reports. Five have been debated either on their own or in the context of related business. Of the remainder, six required no resolution of the House or have been implemented wholly or in part by other means.
    Mr.Banks: That still leaves several reports that we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House. It is a bit depressing to sit in a Committee producing reports only for them to gather dust on a shelf. Specifically, the whole House would be interested in the Committee's recommendations about Prime Minister's Question Time. Prime Minister's Question Time gets most of the criticism from outside this place, much of which is unfair, and the House should have the opportunity to discuss the proposal to have closed questions on Thursdays to see whether that improves the position. May we have a debate on that as quickly as possible, as I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to be in place as Prime Minister to see the new arrangements through?
    Mr. Newton: I indicated in a relatively recent answer that that report is still being studied by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. For my part, the more I think about the matter, the more I think that it may be difficult to achieve a change that would meet the convenience of both sides of the House and therefore command the necessary agreement.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend believe that there should be a debate about the implications of the Nolan committee recommendations as to what interests can and cannot be registered in the House? My right hon.
    654
    Friend may be interested to know that, for Question Time today, despite the fact that the House now wants registered interests marked on questions, 14 Labour Members with relevant trade union interests have tabled questions and not one of them seems to regard that as a registrable interest.
    Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that it would be proper, perhaps, to put the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. On my hon. Friend's wider comments, I am Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is actively considering such issues.

    Voting Procedures
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to speed up voting procedures; and if he will make a statement. [13061]
    Mr. Newton: None, Madam Speaker. If my hon. Friend has any particular cause for concern, he may wish to draw it to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend consider those days when the House can be delayed if it is pursuing, perhaps, a run of six Divisions? Sometimes it can be delayed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for example, as a result of being delayed in one of the Lobbies. Could not different arrangements be made on such occasions—for example, taking the first Division in the normal way and subsequent ones by the pressing of buttons or something of that sort?
    Mr. Newton: In its third report of 1992–93, the Committee recommended that the Chair should have discretion to appoint Tellers at any time up to two minutes after the Question was first put, in the sort of circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. That recommendation was agreed to by the House. However, I believe that I am right in saying that you, Madam Speaker, have not felt it right to exercise that discretion.

Northern Ireland Peace Process
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the bomb explosion in the South Quay area of London last Friday, the declared end to the IRA ceasefire and the implications for security and the peace process in Northern Ireland.
There is no doubt that the evil act in London was the work of the IRA. It has all the hallmarks of its operations, with the callous sacrifice of innocent lives. The bomb followed shortly after an IRA statement, given to the Irish broadcasting organisation on the evening of 9 February, that the complete cessation of hostilities ordered in August 1994 was now at an end. The IRA admitted its responsibility for the bomb on 10 February.
The facts of the incident are briefly these. Around 5.45 pm last Friday, warning calls were made that a large bomb had been placed at South Quay station, Marsh Wall, in London. Local police arrived at the scene shortly after 6 o'clock, and anti-terrorist branch officers shortly after that.
At around 6.30 pm a suspect vehicle, a Ford flat-backed lorry, was identified, and the immediate area was cleared. While the area was being evacuated, the vehicle exploded, causing extensive damage to buildings in the area, and a large number of casualties. Two people were killed and 43 injured, two of them critically. Three police officers were among the casualties. I know that the House will join me in extending our deepest sympathy to all the innocent victims and their families. It is little short of a miracle that the casualty list was not much longer.
I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the emergency services. Despite being hampered by a fractured gas main at the scene, they responded magnificently and they richly deserve all our thanks.
I must say to the House that this may not be the last such atrocity. More may follow, both here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, if the IRA ceasefire is not renewed. We will do all that we can to prevent that and to catch those responsible. The protection of the public will remain our first priority.
In Great Britain, security has immediately returned to pre-ceasefire levels. In Northern Ireland itself, we had been careful from the very first moment of the ceasefire to take no irreversible steps to downgrade our security capability. All necessary measures to cope with the present situation are now in place. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is on full alert. We have sought to make an appropriate and proportionate response to the increased threat without disrupting daily life more than absolutely necessary.
The IRA has brought the 17-month-old ceasefire to an end. There is no shred of an excuse for this return to violence, least of all now, when all-party negotiations were clearly in sight. After the August 1994 ceasefire declaration, we called repeatedly on the IRA to make it clear that it was permanent, despite criticism by some for doubting the good faith of the IRA. We did doubt its good faith and the IRA did not say that it was a permanent ceasefire. None the less, after a prudent period, in order to move the process forward we were prepared to act on the working assumption that the ceasefire would last.
656
In the months that followed, we reduced the more visible and inconvenient aspects of security. We took soldiers off the streets and opened all the border crossing points. We did everything possible to create new jobs in Northern Ireland through renewed inward investment, and we helped to produce a remarkable economic upsurge. We talked to Sinn Fein leaders at official and at ministerial level. We constantly sought to move the peace process forward towards the all-party negotiations that everyone knows are necessary.
No one took more risks for peace than the Government over the past two years, but we never lost sight of the fact that the IRA commitment had not been made for good. No responsible Government could have done otherwise. That was why we and many others saw a start to the decommissioning of illegal arms as a way of creating confidence in Sinn Fein's acceptance of democratic peaceful methods, and showing that the violence had really ended. But all the time that Sinn Fein was calling for all-party talks, we knew that the IRA continued to train and plan for terrorist attacks. Punishment beatings and killings continued, as the House well knows. It remained ready to resume full-scale terrorism at any time. We could never be confident that its behaviour was that of an organisation that had decided to renounce violence for ever. The IRA peace was not a true peace.
I regret to say that the events of last Friday showed that our caution about the IRA was only too justified. The timing of the return to violence may have been surprising: the fact that violence could resume was not. We must now continue the search for permanent peace and a comprehensive political settlement in Northern Ireland. Let there be no doubt that the Government's commitment to that is as strong as ever, and will remain as strong as ever.
We will work for peace with all the democratic political parties and with the Irish Government. But a huge question mark now hangs over the position of one of the parties—over Sinn Fein. Its leaders have spoken often of their commitment to peace and peaceful methods, but they have always ducked and weaved when they have been questioned about the IRA and its methods. After the events of last Friday, their ambiguity stands out starkly. The test for eligibility to take part in all-party negotiations was set by the British and Irish Governments in paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration. They should be democratically mandated parties, which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process.
Sinn Fein's leaders claim that they did not know about the bomb at South Quay and the IRA's ceasefire statement, but they have refused either to condemn or to dissociate themselves from either. Sinn Fein must decide whether it is a front for the IRA or a democratic political party that is committed to the ballot and not the bullet. Meanwhile, one thing is clear: in the absence of a genuine end to this renewed violence, meetings between British Ministers and Sinn Fein are not acceptable and cannot take place.
That is also the position of the Irish Government. They have made it clear to Sinn Fein that their attitude and willingness to meet at political level will be determined by whether the IRA ceasefire is restored. We and the Irish Government are at one on this: the ball is in the court of Sinn Fein and the IRA, if indeed that distinction means anything. It is for them to show through their words and

657
actions whether they have a part to play in the peace process. I am not in the business of slamming doors, but the British and Irish peoples need to know where Sinn Fein stands.
The people of a democracy are not passive spectators to events. They have the right to make their views clear on these issues, and the people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, have consistently done so. The popular will for peace has never been clearer or more coherently expressed than in recent months. The peace process will go on. I commend all those who have had the courage and the sense, in the face of this latest atrocity, to work to prevent a wider return to violence.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have met all the parties in the past two weeks. That process will be intensified with the parties that have not, for the present, disqualified themselves. The aim is, as it has always been, to establish the necessary confidence to enable negotiations between all the parties to begin. I want everyone to be absolutely clear on that point. The objective of all our actions and policies, before and since the ceasefire, has been to get to a position in which all the constitutional and democratic parties can get around the table together. Everything else is a means to that essential end.
On 24 January, I told the House that, if the paramilitaries would not start decommissioning their illegal arms, one alternative way forward was through elections, to give the electoral mandates and confidence that could lead straight, and straight away, to negotiations. As proposed by the Mitchell report, decommissioning could go ahead in parallel with those negotiations. The proposal has been consistently misrepresented by Sinn Fein, and it has been misunderstood more widely. I repeat now that its purpose is to lead directly and speedily to negotiations between all the parties that are committed to peaceful and democratic methods, and it is aimed at reaching a comprehensive political settlement.
An elected body would have to be broadly acceptable and it would be strictly time limited. I am not proposing—as I have made clear on many occasions—an assembly with legislative and administrative powers. Any suggestion of a return to old-style Stormont rule is manifest nonsense on the basis of the proposals that we have put forward. The proposed elections are a door to full negotiations, and I continue to believe that they provide the most promising available opening. We will pursue that proposal and seek to persuade all concerned that it is indeed a way forward and not a means of delaying progress.
Our ideas are still being discussed with the parties. I should like to reassure the House that there are ways forward to negotiations with all the parties, which could include Sinn Fein—but only, of course, if there is an unequivocal return to the ceasefire. Others, including the Irish Government, have ideas, too. Our minds are not closed, and neither, I know, are theirs. I have talked to the Taoiseach twice since the bombing, and we plan to meet soon in London to discuss all the possibilities. I intend to find a way through to the negotiations, with all those who are committed to democracy.
The peace process in Northern Ireland has received a serious setback from the men of violence, but the process is not over—not by any means. We have seen the benefits
658
of what has been achieved since the ceasefire: the freedom to live and to work normally; the freedom to enjoy life; increased prosperity and new jobs; and new hope for the future of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. Those benefits must not lightly be thrown away.
This Government will not be deterred by terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland have tasted peace—a peace that has changed their lives. I have told the House before that I will leave no stone unturned in the search for peace. That is true today, and it will remain true in the future. The people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve no less than that.
Mr. Tony Blair: First, I join the Prime Minister in condemning without reservation the atrocity at Canary wharf and expressing our deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the victims and their families, and our gratitude once again—as so often before—to the emergency services for their unstinting courage. I also offer our thanks to the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve some credit for the calm and responsible way in which they responded to Friday's bomb. Their steadfastness among the sadness, anger and frustration that they must feel is a lesson to us all.
The Prime Minister has said all that needs to be said about the bombing itself. I would add just this: there has been much speculation about whether, as a matter of tactics, the IRA meant the bomb as a one-off or as part of some more prolonged campaign. For the IRA it may be a matter of tactics, but for the victims it has been a matter of life and death. There can be nothing but the most profound contempt for those who will butcher wholly innocent people in the pursuit of any such strategy, whatever it is.
So the question now is hard but simple. How do we regain the momentum for peace without concessions to the men of war? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Downing Street declaration made two things very plain? One was that Britain had no selfish interest in Northern Ireland; its future could rest with its people—indeed, with the people of the whole of Ireland.
Mr. Tony Marlow: What about the United Kingdom?
Mr. Blair: Of course the United Kingdom, too. The second was that, for a lasting settlement to be reached, there had to be a clear commitment by all parties to exclusively peaceful methods. Will the Prime Minister also confirm that all the main parties in the Irish Republic and, indeed, the Social Democratic and Labour party in the north, are committed to those principles?
Is it not the case, therefore, that the vast majority of people from both traditions are committed to peace? They may differ as to the future of Northern Ireland, but they do not as to the means of achieving it. Sinn Fein represents a section of nationalist opinion, but it is worth recalling that it is not predominant even in the nationalist community, north or south. In those circumstances, is not the demand which the Prime Minister makes and which I echo today—that if it wants to participate in negotiations, Sinn Fein must accept the same peaceful methods as everyone else—not only right but the only conceivable course that any British Government could justify? The question then is, if that is so, how do we establish with confidence, now,

659
that it will accept exclusively peaceful methods in the future? That is a question self-evidently even more central after Friday than before.
Decommissioning weapons was one way. In our judgment, it is and remains the obvious way, but that has been ruled out by Sinn Fein. A new electoral mechanism is sought as an alternative to that. Will the Prime Minister confirm that if it is to work, there must be broad agreement to it and that he will pursue all sensible avenues to achieve it? Can he also confirm, as I think he implied in his statement, that if elections go ahead, they will be on the following terms: that that is not a return to Stormont; that it will lead directly to substantive negotiations—in other words, that it is not a delaying tactic—that decommissioning could begin in parallel and that it will remain part of the three-strand peace process? So that is a way to negotiations.
The Prime Minister is surely right to emphasise that other options, whether they come from the Irish Government or from elsewhere, will always be open to consideration. All options are therefore being examined, but no option can include Sinn Fein unless it comes within the democratic process in a genuine, complete and irreversible way. Does not that mean that it must be prepared to play by the rules of democracy, namely, that sometimes one gets one's way and sometimes one does not, but one cannot achieve by violence what one is denied by the will of the people? Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a start at least if Sinn Fein said even that it agreed with the six principles of Senator Mitchell?
I do not believe that this is the end of the search for peace. It cannot be. The benefits of peace have been incalculable in jobs, industry, confidence and security—plain, simple normality. People can go out and enjoy themselves without fear. They can learn to get on with and to come to befriend those of a different tradition. But more than that, peace is what the vast majority of the people of all Ireland—Northern Ireland and the Republic—want. To deny them peace is to vanquish democracy and to let violence determine events. The bombers should not gain concessions from the bomb, but neither should they be allowed to thwart peace.
As I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows, many hard decisions will have to be taken over the next few days and weeks. Those taking them, both here and in Northern Ireland and the Republic, will require unusual courage and determination. There will be a need for still more and, perhaps, even greater risks than ever before to be taken, but the risks are justifiable. The people in Northern Ireland should know that, whatever the political differences between myself and the Prime Minister, on this matter we shall stand four square together in the cause of peace.
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his continuing and firm support for our efforts to produce a satisfactory outcome and a permanent peace for the people of Northern Ireland. As I have said before, our activities are greatly strengthened by the support that we have had from across the Floor, and I deeply appreciate it.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed his warm appreciation for the emergency services, and also referred to the courage of the people of Northern Ireland. I warmly echo that. The bomb on this occasion was in London,
660
but Northern Ireland has suffered for many years and the courage of its people has been remarkable. That courage deserves a reward, which is why it is right that this House should continue to pursue peace.
The right hon. Gentleman asked the right question—how do we regain momentum? He accurately set out the background, so I shall not reiterate what he said. He was equally right to say that all the democratic parties are committed to peace and that Sinn Fein is but a fraction of the nationalists in the north. The other nationalist party has been a firm adherent to the peace process from the outset.
If Sinn Fein is to re-enter negotiations, it must be upon the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and I have both set out; it must be on the same basis as the other parties; and it must be with the same commitment as the other parties. I do not seek today to erect barriers, to produce harsh words or to make it more difficult for those in Sinn Fein to do what needs to be done, but Sinn Fein-IRA will need to decide again that the ceasefire must return. It is essential that they do that.
On the question of the election mechanism, of course there must be broad agreement and of course it is seen as a route to negotiations. That is the underlying purpose, and I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. Equally, he was right to say that we must look at other options. No options can be excluded if they are likely to prove practicable and if they are likely to advance the process. No wise man would turn his back on an option that may enable us to make practical progress and ensure, perhaps, that the bomb that went off the other day is not followed by others.
Sinn Fein must indicate that it is determined to become a democratic party. Doubt has once again savagely and clearly been expressed about its activities in the light of what has happened in the past few days. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it has not clearly and unequivocally adopted the six principles set out in the Mitchell report. The Mitchell report itself did not incorporate a seventh vital principle to Northern Ireland, accepted by all the other parties—the principle of consent. That is accepted by all the mainstream parties in Northern Ireland, and has been so accepted for some time. That was not in the Mitchell report, and it has not been accepted by Sinn Fein.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we are not at the end of the road to peace. If we are pushed back, we will start again. If we are pushed back again, we will start again. If we are pushed back a third time, we will start again. There can be no end to the search for a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland until we have achieved a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland. That should be—and, I hope, will be—true of this Government and all successor Governments, for as long as it may take and of whatever party those Governments may be comprised.
The right hon. Gentleman offered his unequivocal support for the efforts that we are making, and I am grateful for that. We may, as he said, have to take more risks. We will not take reckless risks, but if we believe that a risk is appropriate in the cause of peace—a justifiable risk—we will take it and seek the support of the House in doing so.
Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we owe a duty to all those who suffered

661
in the bomb outrage in docklands, as we have owed it to all those in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who have suffered outrages at the hands of terrorists over the years, to do two things: neither allow the terrorists to dictate the agenda, nor take away from the Government, Parliament and the Leader of the Opposition, with his welcome support on behalf of his party, the determination to continue the fight for peace? All people of good will throughout the island of Ireland, as well as the British Isles, will support my right hon. Friend in his continuing and brave determination to work to that end.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and knows the opportunities and the difficulties as well as any Member, so I am grateful for his support. He is entirely right in the premises that he sets out and I see no particular reason why I should add to his points, except to say that I agree with them.
The reaction and the courage of the people of London who were involved after the bomb the other day is also well worthy of mention in the House. There was a great deal of quiet bravery on that occasion, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to acknowledge it.
Mr. John D. Taylor: On behalf of Ulster Unionist Members, I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. We join him in his total condemnation of the IRA atrocity in London—an incident that has not been condemned by Sinn Fein. On behalf of most people in Northern Ireland, and I might add the overwhelming number of people in the Republic of Ireland, we extend our sympathy to the families who have been bereaved and those who have been injured. We thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats for maintaining a bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland. This is a very bad day for Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, and we appreciate their united front.
Does the Prime Minister agree that some of those who were involved in the peace process were under the self-delusion that democratic procedures could attract those who are solely committed to violence? That seemed to be an error in the approach of some people. Does he agree that the inevitability of another terrorist attack was increasing as Sinn Fein steadily went through certain procedures: rejecting the Downing Street declaration, not approving the six principles recommended in the Mitchell report, and—strangely enough—refusing to reach agreement with all other Irish nationalists at the Dublin forum for peace and reconciliation, on the forum's report on Friday? Sinn Fein was totally isolating itself.
Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the benefits that we may derive from the terrible incident at the weekend is the mobilisation of the people of Northern Ireland towards lasting peace? There is great abhorrence of what happened and we can use that to our advantage, by isolating the terrorists and instead involving the people in the democratic process. That is why we believe that an election is the one way in which to open up an opportunity. Does the Prime Minister agree that those who have misrepresented the elected forum and given the IRA the impression that it was to be a parliament with legislative and administrative powers in a way fuelled the IRA to do what it did this weekend?
662
The Ulster Unionists will make their contribution to the peace process. We shall talk to all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and leaders of all Irish political parties, but to meet them in Dublin will be increasingly difficult following the letter sent out last week by the RUC to all judges and politicians in Northern Ireland, saying that their police protection is to be withdrawn from 4 March this year.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the victims. He speaks, of course, as someone who has himself suffered from terrorist violence in the past. I think he was right to say that Sinn Fein was finding itself increasingly isolated and that that was indicated by the fact that it was the only party not to agree with the final documentation of the forum for peace in Dublin.
Above all, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the desirability of mobilising the people of Northern Ireland for the peace process. They are the most powerful advocates for the peace process and have been since the onset of the process. I think that, with the support of their elected politicians in the House, they can again be mobilised to make it clear to that tiny minority who believe that they can live beyond the law and by terrorism that they are isolated and that they have no friends and no comforters in the democratic House of Commons or among the people of Northern Ireland, whether they be Catholic or Protestant.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, there have been misunderstandings about the nature of the elected forum that I propose. I hope now that those misunderstandings are behind us and laid to rest. I hope that it is now clear what nature of election we propose, what we propose would occur after the election and, in particular, that we seek all-party negotiations speedily thereafter. That is what all parties in the House have sought a way to find. I believe that we may have a route that will reach it. I hope that, in the discussions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I will have with the parties in the days and weeks that lie ahead, we might find the route through to those elections speedily.
Mr. John Hume: May I say that I am absolutely confident in standing here that I speak for the vast mass of the people of both parts of our island, in utterly condemning the terrible atrocity that took place on Friday in London and in expressing the deep sympathy to the families who suffered? No one understands more—especially not more than the people of the north of Ireland—what those people have suffered.
I should also like to say that that event has naturally caused a great many strong feelings in me and my party, given what we have been through in recent times, but I shall keep those to myself today, concentrate on what the Prime Minister was saying positively, and say that I agree with him. We have to concentrate our minds on getting all people together, because the objective has to be what we have never had in Northern Ireland—lasting stability. The worst symptom of the absence of that stability is violence, and it is the duty of all the people to do everything in their power to get everyone to the table.
I also agree that the people of Northern Ireland—and of Ireland as a whole—have recently shown strongly their massive will for peace. I think that one of the best ways

663
forward now is to let the people speak and to let them speak very clearly. If they do, neither the IRA nor anyone else will be able to ignore them. How do I ask the Prime Minister to let them speak? Let us have a referendum in Northern Ireland before the end of this month and ask John Bruton to do the same. There should be two questions. Question No. 1: "Do you totally and absolutely and unequivocally disapprove of violence for any purpose whatsoever on this island?" Question No. 2: "Do you want to see all parties brought to the table to be given a process of dialogue to create lasting stability?"
The Prime Minister: I think that the sympathy expressed from Northern Ireland for the people of London will be very well received, not only by those who suffered directly from the bomb, and their families, but by other Londoners. Clearly, it is right to try to bring people together. The hon. Gentleman is entirely accurate to say that there is a massive will for peace. That has been evident throughout the past three or four years. We are looking at a range of different options on how we might proceed in the future. More than one option lies before us at the moment and we are examining them. Of course, I shall also take account of what the hon. Gentleman had to say.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: As bombs cannot destroy the yearning in Northern Ireland for permanent peace and as the search for that peace must continue, will my right hon. Friend make a priority of promoting meaningful dialogue at this stage between the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in the political track of twin-track? Will he above all make it absolutely clear that there can be no reward for violence?
The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend upon the latter point. We are certainly keen to encourage dialogue—the former point that he makes—and will continue to do so.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I wish to be associated with the words of the Prime Minister and the leader of Labour party, in sending condolences and best wishes to the victims and thanks to the emergency services. Is it not the case that it is simply impossible for the atrocity on Friday night to have been a spontaneous act, and that it must have been carefully and deliberately planned during the past few weeks while the rest of us were trying to find ways to peace? Is it not also the case that the aim of that act was not just to maim innocent bodies, but to make a casualty of peace itself? Is not that a reason why those who will not condemn must be regarded as condoning? Is not this a moment when Sinn Fein must decide whether it will be a democratic party committed to peace, or a prisoner of every callous and arbitrary decision made by the IRA Provisional Army Council?
The Prime Minister knows that we have supported him in his patient and courageous search for peace with the Irish Prime Minister in the past years, and we shall continue to support him in every act that he takes that seeks to reinvigorate the peace process on the basis of a consensus agreement between the democratic parties. Is it not, however, an iron law in those matters that, when the Irish and British Governments agree, they can have success, but when they disagree, they give the terrorists a chance?
664
Surely, therefore, the first priority must now be to restore the trust and unanimity of voice and action between Dublin and London. If that requires compromise on the favourite solutions put forward by both sides, surely that is a small price to pay. Surely those who represent the people of Northern Ireland—who will listen, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) suggested, to the cry of the people of Northern Ireland to let them have the peace back—will recognise that a new spirit of compromise is the only way to ensure that peace itself is not added to the long list of casualties from Canary wharf.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right that the bomb last Friday was not spontaneous, and that it must have been planned, prepared and sanctioned over a substantial period. It did not happen miraculously within a few short hours or days. That is undoubtedly the case, and he is entirely right to draw the attention of the House to that. He is also entirely right to make the point that those who are unwilling to condemn may be seen to condone what has happened, and I hope that that point is taken where it is aimed.
With regard to the situation between the British and Irish Governments, our objectives have been and remain the same—to try to bring all parties together so that a democratic agreement can be reached. We have not always agreed on every aspect throughout the past three years, and we have had to compromise between ourselves many times on the right approach to take. We have done so and we have reached agreements, and I am confident that we shall be able to reach agreements again in future.
I look forward to meeting the Taoiseach shortly, although that meeting will probably not take place this week. It may take place next week, but a date has not yet been determined. I have no doubt that we shall both look at the options that lie ahead, to see whether we can find a way forward that we both agree is the best option to deliver the outcome that we both seek.
Rev. Ian Paisley: May I say to the Prime Minister today that he has the support of all right-thinking and law-abiding people in Northern Ireland at this time? Some of us have come through this for almost a quarter of a century, and we know exactly how the bereaved ones and their families feel. We know the agony and the pain of those who have been injured and of those who will probably never enjoy the fullness of life again. All right-thinking people on both sides of the religious and political divides in Northern Ireland are at one in their sympathy. The House has heard from representatives from all the parties in Northern Ireland, all of whom have said the same in regard to that pain and anguish.
I find it very strange indeed that many commentators and many nationalist leaders, having condemned what IRA-Sinn Fein had done in the heart of the capital city of this United Kingdom, in their next breath repeated the propaganda line that was in the statement—that the people to be blamed for this terrible atrocity were the Prime Minister and the Unionist leaders. While they were prepared to condemn what had been done, those people were also prepared to parrot the lying propaganda of IRA-Sinn Fein. I find that very strange and dangerous.
Dr. Joe Hendron: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come later.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The leader of the Liberal Democrats was absolutely right when he said that this had not happened overnight. The police in Northern Ireland have discovered that, three weeks ago, a registered tax disc on a lorry registered in England was stolen. That tax disc was on the lorry that did the damage. New number plates were made, and the lorry was brought across, via Lame and Stranraer, to do the damage. That has been confirmed to the owner of the tax disc, who is one of my constituents.
Three weeks ago, then, the planning was going on, and the premeditation of this terrible carnage. How could any democratically elected leader in the House of Commons be asked to sit down and negotiate with people who would do that while they were talking peace?
There is only one way in which the matter can be settled, and that is to pass it over to the people of Northern Ireland. Let them have their say—not in any referendum on chosen questions, but on who speaks for whom at the negotiating table.
The Prime Minister: Let me pick up the points that the hon. Gentleman made. First, his words of understanding to the bereaved will be very well received; I am grateful to him for what he said. He is, of course, right to support what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) had to say, and I note with interest what he said about the tax disc. That is very strong corroborating evidence.
There is one obstacle to negotiations, above all—the lack of confidence. It is that lack of confidence that we are to address if we are to have everyone seated down together, which is the objective that all of us seek. Often, in emotion, hot words are spoken that cannot easily be recalled, and lie on the record to cause difficulties in the future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they may not easily be recalled; but I think that, with the greater issue in mind, they can be forgotten, forgiven and put to one side.
I am concerned to look towards the future: not to erect any barriers, but—as we have sought to do with the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members who lead political parties in the House—to bring people together to see whether we can find some common ground on which we can all stand against the terrorists whom none of us in the House can or do support. That is what I am seeking to do, and I am grateful for the constructive response that I have had from all the political parties in recent weeks. I shall look forward to continuing those discussions in the days ahead.
Mr. Peter Shore: May I also express my sympathies for the many victims of this hideous act of violence, and my thanks to the emergency services, particularly the police and the medical services based in the London hospital in my constituency?
As to the future, of course I welcome the Prime Minister's resolution to continue with the peace process. I know that he will readily accept this, but may I urge him to put particular stress upon gaining the full, open, wholehearted commitment of Sinn Fein to the six principles laid down in the Mitchell report? Will he ask the Irish Prime Minister, whom he is to meet shortly, to join him in urging upon Sinn Fein the acceptance of those six principles?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the six principles. They are clearly
666
important, although, as I said a moment ago, there is a seventh principle missing—which is already acceptable to all the other democratic political parties in the north—that would still need to be accepted by Sinn Fein, and that is the principle of consent. One of the great gains that we have made in the past three or four years is the general acceptance of the principle of consent by all parties in the north and by the Government of the Republic of Ireland as well. I will certainly make the points to the Irish Prime Minister that the right hon. Gentleman, has made, and I know that he will consider them carefully.
Mr. Michael Mates: While the response from some people to my right hon. Friend's suggestion that an election to a forum might be a way out of the impasse was completely predictable, because they are not interested in the democratic way forward, does my right hon. Friend accept that there were others who were not sure what was meant, and that that has been fed by the propaganda that this was simply a stalling device or a way to get back to the old ways of politics in Northern Ireland? As that is the case—and I believe that there are some people who are still unsure, although they would be perfectly happy to go forward to a reasonable way of testing the electorate—will my right hon. Friend, now or later today, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, spell out much more clearly what they have in mind? I believe that the Government have some very constructive thoughts that would be acceptable to democrats from both sides of the political divide.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw the distinction between those who deliberately sought to pervert the message and those who misunderstand the message in the absence of further information. I hope that some of the things that I have said over the past few days and what I have had to say to the House this afternoon will remove many of the misunderstandings.
I hope, first in the private discussions that I am having with the political parties, to remove any other misunderstandings that there may be. I would like to see how far in those private discussions I may be able to iron out the areas of difficulty before I publish a paper setting out what the outcome would be. If that is done, before agreement is reached in the back room, it may make it even more difficult to reach an agreement, because people will take an instant view of whether they are in favour of something, and that does make the difficulties rather more intense. I shall certainly take on board what my hon. Friend has had to say, but, with the House's permission, I would prefer to take it on board first in private discussions with the political parties. When a concordat is reached, clearly it will need to be known by all the people in Northern Ireland as well.
Mr. Robert McCartney: I would like to join other hon. Members in offering sincere sympathy on behalf of my constituents in North Down to those who have been bereaved and injured. I also endorse entirely the Prime Minister's commitment to an on-going search for peace, but we must address the methods that are to be pursued in that search.
The Prime Minister will be aware that the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland had considerable reservations and reluctance about entering into negotiations with those

667
who retained the latent threat of un-decommissioned weapons. That latent threat has, through the incident at Canary wharf, been translated into an horrific act of violence. In those circumstances, how can the confidence that is so necessary be created?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that, while there is a necessity to restore in some form the ceasefire, such a restoration and entering into further negotiations with Sinn Fein-IRA begs the question about whether further down the line, when it meets with another impasse, or some situation that does not meet with its approval, it will simply blast it out of the way in the manner of Canary wharf?
The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that many people in Northern Ireland had great reluctance, and still are very reluctant, to enter into talks and discussions with paramilitaries who retain weapons. That is entirely right. The purpose that we have in mind is to try and see whether we can proceed by broad all-party agreement, through an election process, through all-party negotiations, during which, in accordance with the Mitchell report, there would be a parallel decommissioning of weapons as the talks proceeded.
What I know the hon. and learned Gentleman will not wish to happen—neither would any hon. Member—is to see barriers erected over which no one can clamber, so that the whole process simply gets bogged down in the sand. In outright war, one can go only for victory. In circumstances such as those we face, there will be areas where people will have to look to see whether the end justifies the means.
If we can get through to an election process with parallel decommissioning, the end is clear—the end that the hon. and learned Gentleman and all sensible people wish to see, which is the beginning, the continuation and the completion of the decommissioning of weapons. What we are seeking is the mechanism. Here is a way in which I believe that we can achieve it.
Sir Michael Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend received any requests from the Irish Government for assistance from the British security forces in routing out terrorists and their arms dumps south of the border?
The Prime Minister: No, we have Snot, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have very close co-operation with the Irish Government and, on security matters, with the Garda. That has improved dramatically in recent years and has made a considerable contribution to the efforts that we and the Irish Government have sought to make against terrorism in the past few years.
Ms Mildred Gordon: May I say how tragic it is that my constituency, many of whose residents bore the brunt of bombing during the war and many of whom are of Irish descent. should have been the target of this evil act of terrorism? I had intended to raise only matters connected with my constituents, but the Prime Minister's statement has raised two worrying questions in my mind. First, if the leadership of Sinn Fein is undermined, with whom will the Government negotiate? Secondly, has the Prime Minister taken sufficient note of the strong criticism made by the Prime Minister of Ireland of the electoral proposals?
668
To return to my constituents, I thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have expressed their sympathy with the victims and who sent their congratulations to the emergency services on the speedy and efficient way in which they responded. I must also express my admiration for the council workers who have worked night and day to board up apartments whose windows were blown out, to make them wind and weather proof.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware that, in addition to the devastation in Marsh Wall, about 1,000 windows have been blown out in the Barkantine estate, which has four tower blocks, which will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to repair. At this very moment, surveyors are examining the worst-hit tower block—Top Mast Point—to find out whether there is structural damage. If there is, it will cost many millions. Will Government money be forthcoming to help Tower Hamlets council to do the repairs and clearing-up? We want that question answered. We also want to know who will pay for the repairs to the docklands light railway. There was traffic chaos today and the railway must be repaired speedily. I know that the privatisation process has begun.
Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that there has been some talk today of a fund being set up to help victims and their relatives, and householders whose house contents have been damaged by the blast and who are not covered by insurance? If such a fund was set up, would we have Government assistance in publicising it?
The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Lady will take back to her constituents the sympathy of the whole House for the difficulties that they have faced. She is right to draw attention to the fact that that part of London suffered grievously on previous occasions, and on this occasion the people have again responded as we would have expected.
The hon. Lady asked a series of specific questions. She asked with whom we shall negotiate. It is clear that we cannot negotiate with Sinn Fein while a campaign of violence is taking place. That is the position of the British Government and of the Irish Government. We are at one on that point. We can negotiate, of course, once there is a verifiable ceasefire back in place, because that is the practical way for us to proceed and that is what we shall seek to do. On the question of elections, that is a matter under discussion between the British and Irish Governments, and I think that we shall be able to reach an amicable agreement.
The hon. Lady raised a number of questions about costs. As far as I can give her answers now, I shall attempt to do so. With regard to Tower Hamlets, the financial implications for the local authorities are not yet clear. That is being examined, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider applications under the Bellwin scheme as soon as the position becomes clearer. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what that will amount to at this stage, but we are examining the position. I shall write to the hon. Lady about the docklands light railway as soon as I have further information. I have asked the same questions, but I am not yet in a position to give her the answers.
The hon. Lady mentioned that both businesses and individuals will face difficulties. Of course, any victim who was injured in Friday's terrorist outrage will, almost

669
certainly, be eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. For businesses and other individuals, the matter is complex, but if the hon. Lady will be content I shall write to her.
Mr. David Wilshire: In echoing the words of sympathy and thanks, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the effect of Friday night will make the search for a permanent and lasting peace, and progress towards all-party talks, even more important and urgent than before? In the light of comments made by other people, does my right hon. Friend accept that some suggestions—that all Sinn Fein has to do is to say sorry and then we can get back to how things were on Thursday and pretend that nothing has happened—are quite impossible to accept? Does he also agree that, if the bomb that went off on Friday results in an end to the proposals for elections, terrorism will have won and freedom and democracy will have been defeated?
The Prime Minister: We certainly do not wish to see any rewards for terrorism of the sort that we saw on Friday. My hon. Friend is right to say that Friday night makes the search for peace more important and more urgent. On the subject of Sinn Fein, I reiterate the point that I made earlier and, as my hon. Friend put it, sorry will not do. Of course it will not. We would need the clear-cut reinstatement of the ceasefire before we or the Irish Government would be able to re-enter discussions with Sinn Fein.
Mr. Tony Benn: Everyone will share the Prime Minister's expressions of horror at the atrocity in docklands. Does the Prime Minister also recognise that the ceasefire has brought new life to Northern Ireland and that the ceasefire was the result of work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), Mr. Adams and Albert Reynolds? In one sense, there has been no peace process. There has been a ceasefire, but a peace process must mean talks.
I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware—if he is not, I wish to draw his attention to the point—that the breach between London and Dublin, and between London and Washington, has certainly made a peace process more difficult. John Bruton was told on the telephone about the election proposal, and he was never consulted. The Mitchell report, which suggested all-party talks and simultaneous decommissioning, was set aside.
The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
Mr. Benn: It was set aside by the proposal for an election in the north that had never been the subject of proper discussion with Dublin. If we are to have a new ceasefire, are we going to have a peace process following, or will the Government continue to prevaricate on the all-party talks that are absolutely essential if we are to have a long-term settlement in the north?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not urge acceptance upon Sinn Fein either of the six principles or of the consent principle. I am sorry that he neglected to make that point, which I think would be accepted by the whole House. I am not sure that I
670
agree with the right hon. Gentleman's version of history, because it seems to me to be lamentably inaccurate in every respect.
It was nearly three years ago—I do not remember the words precisely—when a message landed on my desk one evening from the IRA saying, "The armed struggle is over. We need your British help to bring it to a conclusion." It realised where it needed to turn, and we have done what we can in the interim to try, first, to bring the ceasefire into operation and, secondly, to move from that ceasefire to a permanent settlement.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his assessment of why we have not been able to move forward to a permanent settlement and all-party negotiations. I can tell him that we have not done so because, first, Sinn Fein-IRA refused to decommission any arms whatsoever. They were not asked by the British Government or the Unionist parties to decommission every weapon that they had, although majority opinion both in the north and in the south felt that they should have been.
They were asked to do some decommissioning in order to instil confidence, so that the Unionist parties could sit down with them without the threat of a gun held to their head the moment that Sinn Fein-IRA did not get precisely what they wanted in negotiations. I am not sure whether it was the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) who said it—he will nod or shake his head—but the view in common currency in Northern Ireland is that talks cannot take place with guns
"on the table, under the table or outside the door."
That is generally accepted in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hume indicated assent.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman nods—I thought he said so.
That view has held throughout the process. It is Sinn Fein's refusal to decommission that prevented us, some time ago, from going forward to all-party talks. That was not due to the stubbornness of the British Government, the stubbornness of the Unionist parties or the stubbornness of the people of Northern Ireland, but it was due to the fact that Sinn Fein would not decommission. When it would not do so, an alternative mechanism was found through patient negotiation and agreement, so that all the parties could sit down with a proper mandate to discuss, and decommissioning could take place in parallel with those discussions. The moment that that proposition became apparent, the reward for finding an alternative method was the bomb that murdered people just the other day in London.
I know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) feels deeply about this, but he is wrong: plain, common-or-garden wrong.
Mr. Barry Porter: We have used the phrase "IRA-Sinn Fein" many times in the House, as if the two parts were part of the same entity. Is it correct to treat them in that way now, because I was never sure whether the IRA controlled Sinn Fein or the other way round, or a combination of both? Certainly the events of the past few days would suggest that the IRA Provisional Army Council has ignored Sinn Fein, and, in the current circumstances, Sinn Fein could not now deliver

671
decommissioning if it were asked. Is not this a chance for Sinn Fein now to take its democratic opportunity, not merely to say that it condemns violence, although that is important, but to take part in whatever democratic process is necessary to determine who comes to the negotiating table?
The Prime Minister: As for the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA, I think that they are both members one of another. That is the position, and has been so for a very long time. Were that not the case, perhaps Sinn Fein would be more prepared to condemn openly activities that no civilised person could possibly condone.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Prime Minister will be aware that one of the people murdered on Friday was my constituent, John Jefferies. John was a talented young musician, and extremely popular in his local community. I know that the Prime Minister will join me in sending our condolences to his family. Does he agree that we must ensure that John's life is not lost in vain and that everyone in the House and those parties that might want to be part of it must do all in their power to ensure that the peace process gets back on track?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue and I agree entirely with every word she said. I hope that she expresses my personal sympathy to Mr. Jefferies's family. In a sense, the death of Mr. Jefferies, and the death and the injury of others, is a stark commentary on what we have seen for a long time in the dispute in Northern Ireland. They were innocent victims; they had no connection whatsoever with the ancient feuds that light these hatreds and have kept them burning for so long. The hon. Lady is entirely right: the best memorial to Mr. Jefferies and to the other people who have been murdered over the past 30 years would be for us to bend all our will to find a proper, full-term solution.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems highly likely that in the end we shall be confronted by the old, hard choices in Ulster? Will he remind the democratic nationalists in the Province that they would have a secure and honoured position in a united and integrated United Kingdom? Will he also remind them that they would be able to exercise real power in some areas if we were to restore a proper measure of local government in Ulster?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, for he knows Northern Ireland well, most of the choices in terms of how to carry this matter forward are hard choices—there are very few easy choices in the matter. I pray that we shall not come to the old, hard choices that my hon. Friend has in mind, for that would mean that violence and terrorism had taken full root and were flourishing again.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that a whole generation of politicians in Northern Ireland have aptitudes and skills not yet fully utilised in the way that they could be and should be in their constituencies. I hope that we shall be able to reach a position, by agreement, where those politicians can use their talents in that respect once again.
Mr. Clive Soley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his desire for negotiations as a
672
gateway to inclusive talks is not mutually exclusive to the Irish Government's desire for proximity talks? Proximity talks could address some of the fears, anxieties and uncertainties about the nature of such elections, which would be necessary for them to be successful, which is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve.
The Prime Minister: The Irish Government seek proximity talks to clarify, essentially, what would be the position during elections and after elections. I am discussing, bilaterally, exactly the same points with the democratic political parties. The difficulty with proximity talks—I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I put the point flippantly—is that we would need to have people in proximity, and there is a certain disinclination to do that at the moment. I have never denied the underlying need for discussions prior to the elections—indeed, I embarked upon those discussions from the moment that I set out to the House the possible electoral route forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. I now draw questions on the statement to a close.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This matter is of great importance and a number of hon. Members have been rising in an attempt to participate in the statement. Have the Government indicated that they will allocate time for a debate on this issue? Many hon. Members were excluded from today's debate and this is a very big issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) reminded me that we have not had a debate on Northern Ireland since the ceasefire—something has had to occur to trigger this statement. May we try, through you, Madam Speaker, to persuade the Government to make time available for a debate?
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that is normally done through the usual channels. He is quite right: we have not had a debate on these matters for some time. Many hon. Members always stand to put a question as there is a lot of interest in these matters. I regret very much that it is not always possible to call all hon. Members who are standing. I have kept the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box for more than an hour. I have a list of all the hon. Members who have been standing—I always keep a list of such hon. Members and I try to call them alternately. I shall at least try to give hon. Members who have not been called an opportunity to put a question either to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or to the Prime Minister during subsequent statements. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but it is a matter for the usual channels.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is obviously your decision to terminate questions at this point, but you must recognise that all those hon. Members who still want to ask a question would seek to be called in a debate on Northern Ireland, in which, we would hope, speeches would be time-limited so that those of us who wanted to

673
contribute were not talked out by ex-Ministers or Privy Councillors, who always seem to get priority when debates are held on any subject.
Madam Speaker: I have just made it clear to the House that, every time there is a statement or a debate, I keep a list and I put stars against the names of the Members who have been called once, twice or three times—or not at all.

Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Ministerial Responsibility
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.37 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the erosion by Her Majesty's Government of the principle of ministerial responsibility.
It is often said that the United Kingdom has no written constitution, which is technically inaccurate, although it may be substantially correct. It undoubtedly conveys the message that much of the practice and many of the principles of our constitution depend on convention, and one such convention is that of ministerial responsibility.
What are conventions? They are merely habits and practices that do not have the force of law. If a convention is broken, no law is broken. Conventions are habits and practices that depend on their observance for their validity. A breach of a convention may, however, do serious damage to the integrity of the constitution, and it may do intense—even immeasurable—damage to the reputation of the Government and of Parliament.
The observance of some conventions is exclusively the responsibility of the Government; self-evidently, ministerial responsibility is one. Ultimately, enforcement of the convention of ministerial responsibility is a matter for the Prime Minister. He leads the Government; he selects his Ministers.
It follows that, when a breach of convention is tolerated, that breach is the Prime Minister's responsibility. He alone has the right to determine who should be in his Government and who should continue to be his Ministers. If, by a breach of the convention of ministerial responsibility, the reputation of Parliament is damaged, the Prime Minister is liable for that, too.
We should ask ourselves how far ministerial responsibility extends. It has been the subject of some dispute in the past three years, in an inquiry the results of which we may shortly hear, but I start with a proposition to which there can be no objection—that the personal actions of a Minister must be his own responsibility.
If a Minister knowingly deceived Parliament or Members of Parliament about a secret change in Government policy, that would be his personal responsibility, and I have no doubt that such a Minister should resign. A Prime Minister who did not require him to do so would be culpable in the extreme because, jointly and severally, they would be guilty of a gross breach of the convention of ministerial responsibility. Together, they would damage the reputation of Parliament.
Let us take another example. If, by his actions, a Minister knowingly created circumstances in which a person facing serious criminal charges was denied information necessary for his defence, would that not be his personal responsibility, and should not that also require resignation? Indeed, if, in either of the examples

675
that I have offered merely as hypotheses, resignation did not follow, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility would have been seriously eroded.
We must ask ourselves, how do we predict that the present Government might respond to either of those two hypotheses? We shall have to wait to know precisely, but we can obtain a clue to their future behaviour by examining their past behaviour—for they are a Government who have already been party to a substantial erosion of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.
Sir Robin Butler, in a written statement to the Scott inquiry, appeared to absolve both Ministers and Whitehall permanent secretaries—of which he is, by some distance, the most senior—from almost any mistake, misdemeanour or malpractice in the government machine. In his written statement, he said:
"While ministerial heads of department must always be accountable for the actions of their departments and its staff, neither they nor senior officials can justly be criticised for shortcomings of which they are not aware, and which could not reasonably have been expected to be discovered, or which do not occur as a foreseeable result of their own actions. Ministers and senior officials can only be criticised personally for deficiencies in the organisation if those deficiencies occur as a foreseeable result of their instructions, or they could reasonably be expected to have known about them or discovered such deficiencies and taken action to amend them. While ministerial heads of department must always be accountable for the actions of their department and its staff, neither they, nor senior officials, can justly be criticised in a personal sense for shortcomings of which they are not aware."
I fancy that, in a report to be made public later this week, issue may be taken with some of the propositions in that statement.
Let us take the statement at its face value, however. Let us take what I understand to be perhaps an updating of the Maxwell-Fyfe propositions, but which essentially is the assertion that, where personal responsibility is concerned and where personal knowledge is available, a Minister is likely—indeed, bound—to be held to be responsible. Let us test that modern statement of ministerial responsibility against two recent examples, the first of which is the Pergau dam affair.
The Minister with responsibility, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), against the advice of the permanent secretary of the Overseas Development Administration, expressly authorised the commitment of aid for the Pergau dam. He did so as his personal responsibility; as I understand it, that formed part of the submissions made on his behalf when the matter reached court. Notwithstanding that, he was found by the court to have acted illegally. In a decision in which he overruled the advice of the most senior civil servant in the Department and for which he took personal responsibility, he was found by the court to have acted illegally.
Did resignation follow? Did remorse follow? Was there even an apology? There was none of those—the Foreign Secretary no doubt possessing all the Christian virtues except resignation—yet the circumstances that I have just described fall fairly and squarely within the Butler definition. The failure to resign or to accept responsibility unquestionably eroded the convention of ministerial responsibility.
If being found to have acted illegally were grounds for resignation, the Home Secretary, who has a somewhat feline character, can be regarded only as possessing nine
676
lives. For a while, hardly a week passed without a court holding that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had exceeded his powers.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, when the High Court, or the Court of Session in Scotland, finds that a Minister has acted ultra vires—has acted outwith his powers—that is not an assertion of the supremacy of the court, but rather an assertion of the supremacy of Parliament. To the Minister involved, the court is saying, "You have sought to exercise a power that Parliament has not conferred upon you." Hon. Members should not be critical when members of the Executive are held by the courts to have acted illegally. By doing so, the courts are asserting the sovereignty of Parliament over the Executive.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Would not the Liberal Democrats' policies of weakening the veto and handing more power to the European Parliament undermine ministerial responsibility and accountability to the House?
Mr. Campbell: I think that I am correct in saying that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in defence matters. He will be aware that, under article V of the north Atlantic treaty, the United Kingdom is bound to go to the defence of any one of the 15 members of NATO, including, for example, Greece or Turkey, and that we are bound to do so using nuclear weapons, if necessary. That shows that a sovereign Parliament can, by treaty, cede certain of its responsibilities. What was the Single European Act if it was not a formal cession of sovereignty from the House to Europe? If we choose to do that, we do so in the exercise of the responsibility that has been conferred on us by the electorate.
As we sign treaties, we can abrogate them—the sovereignty of Parliament is not affected. The suggestion that qualified majority voting, which already exists in certain areas, is somehow an abrogation of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, as it applies to the obligation on Ministers to take responsibility for their own actions is, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, somewhat constitutionally inept.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said not so long ago that, were he to be found guilty of what I might term conduct unbecoming of a Cabinet Minister, he would resign forthwith. Surely his Cabinet colleagues hold to the same code of honour.
Mr. Campbell: It is not for me to lay down a code of honour for the Cabinet. That is an issue on which members of the Cabinet must satisfy themselves and the electorate. In a sense, I think that the hon. Gentleman seeks to anticipate the Scott report. I have studiously tried to avoid doing so; I have merely put forward some hypotheses that I think might legitimately test the argument and the extent to which the doctrine and convention of ministerial responsibility can he applied.
What matters is not only the form of responsibility but its substance. The House will recall that the Home Secretary told us that the chief executive of the Prison Service was dismissed because of operational shortcomings in the service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he took no responsibility for operational matters. We were told that policy was for him alone and that operations were for the chief executive.

677
If we are to believe the chief executive, however, he met the Home Secretary almost every day to discuss the Prison Service. Are we to believe that in the course of an extensive relationship only issues of policy were discussed? I do not believe it. Allegations have been made that on occasion the Home Secretary made recommendations, as it were, to the director about the way in which certain prisoners should be dealt with. If that is not involvement in operational matters, what is it?
Did the Home Secretary go to his party conference and receive a standing ovation on the understanding that he took no responsibility for operational matters? When the blue-rinsed matrons of Surbiton rose to Lord Archer's invocation that "Michael should stand and deliver"—the noble Lord has much style, but not much originality—did they do so on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would maintain an Olympian detachment from operational matters? Of course they did not. They did so because they were led to believe that, in terms of the Prison Service, the Home Secretary would be a hands-on Minister.
There was then the legendary failure of the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), either to anticipate or to answer the question whether Mr. Lewis should have been sacked. The logical position is that, if Mr. Lewis and the Home Secretary were both engaged in operational matters and there was a failure in that regard, both of them should have gone. It is a pity that the quick wit of the shadow Home Secretary did not permit him at least to anticipate that question and to give that answer.
What does the erosion of ministerial responsibility tell us about government? It tells us, first, that there is a great deal of arrogance in government. It tells us that there is an unwillingness to be held accountable. It perhaps tells us that there is a great deal of self-satisfaction in government.
What are the consequences of the erosion of ministerial responsibility? They include a deep cynicism among the electorate about the governance of Britain. It is clear beyond any question that the political system has never been held in less respect than it is now.
Above all, the erosion of ministerial responsibility tells us of the weakness of a Government who dare not apply a doctrine that lies at the very heart of constitutional government in the United Kingdom. They dare not do so, because the political consequences would be so damaging to their survival. That is the final indictment of the Government. In their weakness they damage not only themselves but the fabric of the constitution. It is time that we saw the back of them.
4.57 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's policies for discharging Ministerial accountability to Parliament, for improving the management and delivery of public services, for maintaining high standards in public bodies, and for improving the openness and responsiveness of the public sector, thus creating a framework for good Government.".
678
To claim that there has been an erosion of ministerial responsibility is contradicted by the facts. The Government have not only adhered to the principle; we have clarified it, sharpened it and taken care to explain it to a wide public audience. I shall respond to the motion by considering how Ministers have discharged their responsibilities in five broad areas.
First, I shall deal with Ministers' responsibility to their own civil servants. Secondly, I shall deal with their responsibilities to next steps agencies. Thirdly, there are Ministers' responsibilities for non-departmental public bodies. Fourthly, I shall refer to ministerial accountability to Parliament. Finally, I shall take up Ministers' responsibilities to the public at large.
First, there is ministerial responsibility for the civil service. Any examination of the subject would be incomplete without dealing with the role of the civil service. The Government regard the civil service as a precious asset that other countries have good reason to envy. In our view, the responsibility of Ministers is not confined to accounting for the actions of the civil service. We have a responsibility for the civil service and to it. We are determined to take such steps as are necessary to maintain its essential character, which is based upon integrity, political impartiality, selection and promotion on merit and accountability, through Ministers, to Parliament.
That is the background to our introduction of the new civil service code. The code provides a succinct statement of the constitutional framework of the civil service and the values that every civil servant is expected to uphold. It restates that civil servants owe their loyalty to Ministers and that Ministers must account to Parliament. We are indebted to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, whose original draft provided the model to which we stayed very close.
The code restates the established constitutional framework of accountability to which the Government are committed, but it also contains an important innovation. It provides a right of appeal to the independent civil service commissioners for any civil servant who believes that he or she is being required to act in a way that is illegal, improper or unethical; that breaches constitutional convention or a professional code; that may involve maladministration; or that otherwise breaches the code or raises a fundamental issue of conscience.
The code came into force on 1 January and it deserved more attention than it got. Not only does the concise code apply to every civil servant, but, more importantly, there has been wide consensus on its substance. The House will agree that it is of the utmost importance that the civil service should command the confidence of both present and alternative Administrations. We welcome the view that was expressed in the fifth report 1993–94 by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on "The Role of the Civil Service". It stated that there was little doubt that civil servants would be able to demonstrate a high level of commitment to any incoming Government.
Secondly, the report stated that the commitment by the overwhelming majority of civil servants to the principle and practice of a politically impartial civil service is undiminished. Thirdly, it said that the next steps reforms were in principle compatible with the maintenance of the traditional values of the civil service.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Was not this relationship between Ministers, civil servants and Parliament fatally and permanently undermined when Mrs. Thatcher did not take responsibility for authorising the leak of the letter of the Solicitor-General in the Westland case and did not see it as necessary to dismiss any civil servant for giving that authorisation without her permission?
Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House for longer than I have, and he will remember the debate and the explanations that were given at the time. I have affirmed the principles of the new civil service code, the great advantage of which is that it sets out, perhaps for the first time, in crystal clear language the obligations of Ministers and civil servants one to the other.
I shall now deal with ministerial responsibility for agencies. The introduction of the civil service code represents an important element of continuity in the Government's policy for continuity and change in the civil service. At the heart of the programme for change is the next steps project to improve management in Government. Under next steps, since 1988 we have established executive agencies within the public service to deliver services to the public either directly or indirectly. The next steps project has affected practically every part of the civil service, and that covers a wide spectrum of activity. It has made significant management improvements. Currently there are 110 executive agencies, and two civil servants in three are working under next steps arrangements. I expect that proportion to rise to three quarters by the end of next year.
The introduction of next steps executive agencies does not change the usual framework of ministerial accountability to Parliament. Civil servants report to Ministers and Ministers account to Parliament for all the activities of their Departments, including their agencies. The next steps concept introduces a great deal more clarity into the definition of respective roles and responsibilities.
In particular, it makes clearer the aims and objectives of civil service organisations, the tasks and performance targets that Ministers set each agency to achieve, and the amount of resources that are allocated to agencies. The greater separation of roles within the civil service and the introduction of performance targets to areas where previously there were none have been catalysts for change and for improvement in the management and provision of services.
Dr. Godman: Two Benefits Agency offices in my constituency are staffed by highly competent and professional people. However, would the Minister agree that some problems that are brought to us by constituents who are on social security incomes require a response from a Minister in addition to the usual letter from the chief executive?
Mr. Freeman: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My brief contains comments on agencies, and if he will bear with me I shall deal with his point.
The next steps initiative does not change conventional relationships between Ministers and those carrying out the executive functions of Government. Agencies are within the civil service, and next steps arrangements provide for the clear delegation of operational responsibilities. The chief executive of each agency is personally responsible to
680
the Minister for its management and performance. The form and extent of the delegation is determined case by case in the agency framework document, which is published. Each document sets out the range of tasks that the agency is to perform. That does not mean that, in delegating operational responsibility to the chief executive via the framework document, the Minister washes his hands of any interest other than in output and outcomes.
As I have said, the Minister remains accountable to Parliament for the agency. If he is to provide an adequate account, he needs to keep in touch and to retain the right to look and question and even to intervene in the operations of the agency if public or parliamentary concerns justify it. He may need to give fresh directions or to take other action if he or Parliament is not satisfied with what is being done. The Minister must be able, if necessary, to examine in depth and detail every part of the activities of the agency. That does not cut across the principle of next steps agencies.
Framework documents may require certain decisions or events to be referred or brought to the attention of Ministers, and the basis on which hon. Members have accepted the arrangements under which their inquiries about operational matters are handled by chief executives is the knowledge that, ultimately, if it becomes necessary, they can take up the matter directly with the Minister. The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service strongly endorsed that.
I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that constituents of any hon. Member have recourse to Ministers either in writing or through their Member of Parliament at the Dispatch Box. The establishment of agencies in no way seeks to cut across that principle.
Mr. Derek Foster: I have a question for the Minister before he leaves the topic of the next steps agencies. The Prison Service has been mentioned. Does he agree that continual interference by a Minister in what are described as operational matters undermines the authority of the chief executive, and makes it almost impossible for him to run the agency? Is the next steps agency structure incapable of dealing with the problems in the few agencies that are continually surrounded by controversy?
Mr. Freeman: I have defended the right—indeed, the responsibility—of Ministers to inquire, nay to intervene, in the activities of any agency so as to discharge their accountability to Parliament. That is the difference between the public and private sectors. The analogy being drawn by some that an agency is like a subsidiary company of a large group holding company is false. A Minister is accountable to Parliament and must be able to call to account the chief executive and other officers of an agency. He must also be able to examine and inquire into every nook and cranny of its activities.
We are still developing our experience with the agencies. We have 110 of them, and perhaps in certain cases those who sit on the advisory committees of agencies are unclear about their responsibilities. Are they confused about their responsibility to advise the Minister, or do they think that somehow they are non-executive directors of an operating company? They are not the latter. The Minister is responsible at all times, and is accountable to Parliament.

681
He delegates day-to-day responsibility but does not forgo the right to intervene in the affairs of the agency or in the responsibility of the chief executive.
Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting a further intervention. Is it not the case that the frequency of intervention that he has described and for which there may be the most compelling political and public interest justification, necessarily results in actions at operational level that have been determined by what the Minister has said or by what he is expected to think? Does the Minister accept that the consequence of that is that Ministers must accept that in some circumstances they may have to resign because of operational failures within the agency?
Mr. Freeman: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall deal with that point in the concluding part of my remarks, when I come to ministerial responsibility to Parliament. However, he must be right in principle. If it is the responsibility of a Minister in discharging his accountability to Parliament to look into the affairs of an agency, the distinction between policy and operations—which I have defined more clearly in this debate for the benefit of the House—means that, if he intervenes and directs because of pressure brought by Parliament or because of a collective judgment by Parliament that the operations of an agency may need to change, that will become his responsibility and not the chief executive's.
Some people, including some members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, have proposed that chief executives should account directly to Select Committees about their annual performance. However, that could not be reconciled with their position as agency staff or, therefore, in relation to civil servants who report to their Minister. That would also not fit in with the Committee's acknowledgement that it is for the Minister to account to Parliament. However, agency chief executives regularly appear before Select Committees to explain the factual position in relation to the agency without prejudicing normal ministerial accountability.
An essential part of the next steps arrangements is that the framework document should in each case spell out as clearly as possible the division of responsibilities between the Minister and the chief executive. Such clarification does not mean that independent advice to Ministers and agencies should be excluded. Agency arrangements often provide for an advisory board or an adviser to the Minister to serve as a source of outside expertise that is relevant to the business of the agency. That may be mirrored by outside advice which the chief executive requires.
The story of next steps is one of success, and there is no doubt that standards of service and performance have improved. Later this month, we shall publish the 1995 "Next Steps Review", an annual White Paper which summarises progress in all the agencies. The review will show that agencies, overall, met 83 per cent. of the key targets that were set by Ministers in 1994–95, which compares favourably with the 80 per cent. that were met in the previous year.
The 1995 review will be the sixth in a series. However, it is significantly different from earlier ones because it has developed from being a report on the next steps project to one which focuses on agency performance. It will show
682
that, in different spheres and in different ways, many next steps agencies are delivering services to improved standards with increased efficiency and effectiveness.
I should like to remind the House of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's conclusion, in its most recent report on the role of the civil service. It reported that agencies represented
"a significant improvement in the organisation of Government … any future Government will want to maintain them in order to implement its objectives for the delivery of services to the public."
I shall now examine the question of ministerial responsibility for non-departmental public bodies, commonly called quangos. The Opposition's arguments in relation to quangos lack common sense because, first, they accuse the Government of eroding the principle of ministerial responsibility and, secondly, they accuse us of the opposite—of having strengthened ministerial control through quangos in spheres that were once the responsibility of local government, thus creating the so-called democratic deficit. The Opposition cannot have it both ways at once—indeed, I am showing that they are wrong twice over.
We have not created some sort of quango state. The evidence for that is published annually in a booklet called "Public Bodies", which is a continuous public record that, significantly, did not exist before this Government created it in the early 1980s. The booklet is available to hon. Members in the Library. It shows that, far from running out of control, non-departmental public bodies—the real quangos—decreased from 2,167, in 1979, to 1,227, in 1995, which is a 43 per cent. reduction. Likewise, the number of staff who are employed by those bodies decreased from 217,000, in 1979, to 109,200, in 1995. That is a 45 per cent. reduction.
The Liberal Democrats, at the last count, had proposed the creation of almost 900 new quangos, including an office of utility regulation—to regulate the regulators—an animal protection commission, an arms conversion agency, and both a local enterprise agency and a local housing arbitration agency for every local authority.
The function of NDPBs is regularly reviewed in a continuous programme. Once they are no longer needed in their existing form, the bodies are abolished, merged or privatised. Even so, we have recently undertaken a further series of initiatives to improve their efficiency, standards and responsiveness. First, we are implementing virtually every one of the recommendations on quangos made in the first report of the Nolan committee. Those recommendations deal not only with public appointments but with proprietary issues. We expect to issue a consultation paper in the next few weeks, following a review of the legal framework of propriety and audit in public bodies, as Nolan recommended.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is reviewing the way in which the administrative costs of NDPBs are controlled. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is examining the scope for rationalising the function of NDPBs in certain policy areas in order to minimise any overlap or spheres of unnecessary regulation. Finally, the efficiency unit in my Department is carrying out a study which is designed to ensure that NDPBs with executive responsibilities have a clear concept of their objectives and effective systems to measure whether they have been achieved.
We are therefore strengthening the accountability of NDPBs to Ministers. At the same time, we are strengthening those bodies' accountability outwards—to

683
the people who use them. Our work on public appointments is a clear example of ensuring the maintenance of the highest standards through greater openness and public accountability.
The first report of the Nolan committee, to which I have referred, covered public appointments. It found nothing seriously wrong with the system, but it made a number of recommendations that were designed to demonstrate publicly that clean bill of health. We welcome those recommendations and have implemented them.
One key recommendation was the establishment of an independent commissioner for public appointments. Sir Len Peach, formerly chairman of the Police Complaints Authority and a man with an outstanding personal record in both the public and private sectors, started work on 18 December last year. His job is to monitor, regulate and audit the processes for all appointments to executive NDPBs and NHS bodies. To that end, he is currently drafting guidance on public appointments.
The guidance will incorporate a code of practice that is built around seven key principles: ministerial responsibility, as Nolan recommended; appointment on merit; independent scrutiny; equal opportunity; probity; openness and transparency; and proportionality. Sir Len will be consulting with all bodies that have a direct interest in the guidance, including the House, through a draft that will be issued in the week beginning 26 February. He intends to publish the final version in April. He will then publish a preliminary report on his work, towards the end of this year, and a first substantive report in the summer of 1997.
I believe that those reports, together with Departments' public announcements of appointments, will bring full transparency and a great degree of accountability into that aspect of our public life. At the same time, the reports will endorse ministerial responsibility for public appointments and, by showing that that responsibility is open and fully justifiable in the way in which it works, will strengthen that responsibility.
Mr. Tom King: In relation to the Nolan committee's first report, the Chancellor has not yet made any reference to the work that is being done on the second report, which of course is extremely germane to the issues that he is speaking about.
Mr. Freeman: My understanding from the chairman of the committee is that work is progressing on its report into local public bodies, such as the training and enterprise councils. I should expect that the committee will reach a conclusion and publish a report, possibly in the late spring. As and when that report is available, I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the Lord President will say what form—
Mr. King: It goes much wider than TECs. It covers the very important spheres into which—it is policy that I certainly support—substantial sums of public money go, such as further and higher education, TECs, universities and colleges of higher education. It covers all the housing associations and the housing corporations. It will cover a wide ambit, which will be of considerable interest to the House.
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The report is an important piece of work, and it is being carried out with typical thoroughness. The House and the other place eagerly await its publication.
Dr. Godman: The Minister will have to forgive me for my parochialism, but does Sir Len Peach have a United Kingdom-wide role, or will he have counterparts in Edinburgh and Belfast?
Mr. Freeman: His role extends throughout Great Britain, and he has a similar role in Northern Ireland. He is therefore, effectively, covering the whole of the United Kingdom.
I shall now deal with the issue of ministerial accountability to Parliament, which has been raised by the Liberal Democrats. In the previous sections of my speech, I have said where progress has been made during the past decade, especially in the past few years, in clarifying responsibility in other aspects of public life. The Minister in charge of a Department is the only person who may be said to be ultimately accountable for the work of his Department. Parliament has usually conferred powers on the Secretary of State or the Minister, and Parliament calls on Ministers to be accountable for the policy, actions and resources of their Departments in the use of those powers.
However, while a Minister has full constitutional accountability to Parliament for everything that the Department does, it is manifestly impossible for him to take all decisions, or be personally involved in every action of his Department. It cannot, therefore, be sensibly suggested that a Minister is personally responsible for every action of his Department. It is worth stressing that distinction, because the terms "ministerial accountability" and "ministerial responsibility" have tended to be used interchangeably.
The mistaken inference that is sometimes drawn is that a Minister must personally take the blame—or the credit—for every action of his Department. It is equally mistaken to think, as some on the Opposition Benches do, that, in clarifying that well-established distinction, the Government are attempting to redefine those things for which Ministers may properly be held both accountable and personally responsible.
For the benefit of the House, I should like to spell out briefly the Government's position. Ministers take personal responsibility for five fundamental areas: the policies of their Departments; the framework within which those policies are delivered; the resources allocated; such implementation decisions as the framework documents for agencies may require to be referred to them or agreed with them; and their response to major failures or expressions of parliamentary or public concern, in the sense of demonstrating what action they have taken to correct a mistake and prevent its recurrence.
The Government's position is fully in accord with the classic statement on the subject made in the House more than 40 years ago in the debate on the Crichel Down affair by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. He said at the time:
"The Minister is not bound to defend action of which he did not know, or of which he disapproves. But … he remains constitutionally responsible to Parliament for the fact that something has gone wrong, and he alone can tell Parliament what has occurred and render an account of his stewardship."—[Official Report, 20 July 1954; Vol. 530, c.1286–87.]
I am aware that some people contend that the establishment of next steps agencies represents a breach of that orthodoxy. That is not the case.
Next steps agencies are part of ministerial Departments and a few are Departments in their own right. The Minister remains accountable to Parliament, whether the civil

685
servants who carry out the departmental functions in question are in an agency or not. Indeed, the delegation of public clarification of roles in the framework documents serves, if anything, to enhance accountability by increasing transparency.
The focus of what I have said so far has been on the accountability of Ministers to Parliament for their Departments. Ministers also have a responsibility to justify their conduct to Parliament. In that respect, too, the Government's position is perfectly clear. It is only a few months since we made it clear that we agreed with the Nolan committee that the principles of conduct which applied to Ministers could helpfully be set out in one place in clear and comprehensible form.
On 2 November, I told the House that the new first paragraph of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" was taking immediate effect. I shall not detain the House by rehearsing all seven principles of ministerial conduct set out there in full, but it is worth reminding hon. Members of the opening sentence, from which the others follow and which puts the matter in a nutshell. It states:
"Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct in the performance of their duties."
I also remind the House of the great care and wide consultation that we undertook before finalising the revision of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" in the light of the first report from Lord Nolan's committee. The third principle, on not misleading Parliament, attracted particular interest in this place and beyond. Let me remind the House of the version approved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I announced on 2 November:
"Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public and should correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with established Parliamentary convention, the law, and any relevant Government Code of Practice."
It is important to emphasise that the principle is deliberately in the public domain, having been carefully debated in the light of Lord Nolan's report. The opening up and clarification of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is an achievement of the Government. Until 1992, the document was not publicly available. There is no surer confirmation of the Government's willingness to be held to account and to be seen to be held to account.
Some have argued that the word "knowingly" provides some sort of escape clause for rendering account to Parliament. That is not so. Indeed, in retaining that word, we embodied a valuable and long-recognised distinction between intentionally and inadvertently misleading Parliament.
By releasing "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", by recasting it so that the opening paragraph brings together a code of ministerial conduct, by openly discussing the terms of the principles in that code, the Government have demonstrated their clear commitment to upholding the principle of ministerial accountability and responsibility to Parliament.
I hope that I have assisted the House in response to the debate by stating clearly what the Government's successful and clear record has been.
5.24 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: This is a short debate. It is in Liberal Opposition time, so hon. Members from all parties will be relieved to know that I intend to be brief.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on the authoritative way in which he advanced his case. The Minister was helpful in setting out the Government's position. May I remind the Minister that there would have been no civil service code but for the report by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The Government set their face against the code at the beginning. It was only after that code was published that work was done to achieve a consensus and the code was finally approved.
The Government have been dragged kicking and screaming through the Nolan committee. Fundamental changes have resulted from the Nolan committee and its recommendations both in the way in which the House proceeds and in the way in which Ministers proceed. The committee's recommendations have also resulted in amendments to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". So the Minister cannot assume all virtue in recounting what is now the Government's position. The Government have been dragged to that position by the effectiveness of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the power of the Nolan committee recommendations.
It is fitting that the House is debating ministerial responsibility today, in what might prove to be a crucial week for British democracy and the future of the Tory party. The test for the Tory party is not whether it can react to Scott in a disciplined manner to save Ministers' skins. The test is whether it can rise above short-term party interests to examine the health of British democracy.
The risk for the Tories is that the Prime Minister may even misjudge the interest of his party, as he seriously misjudged the mood of the nation on Nolan. How ironic it would be if the interests of the Tory party and those of British democracy coalesced in the need for ministerial resignations, yet the Prime Minister proved too short-sighted to rise to challenge. Perhaps the Government's position is so parlous that they cannot survive the shock of ministerial resignations in the run-up to a crucial by-election and the local elections in May.
We read that the Prime Minister is so determined to protect his Ministers that he is prepared to threaten an early general election to frighten the rebels into line. Does that mean that no one is to carry the can following Scott? After three years of work and 1,800 pages, and after a Cabinet unit has been set up which has probably spent more on monitoring Scott than was spent on the Scott inquiry, that would be remarkable. Or does it mean only that no Minister will carry the can?
I warn the Prime Minister that if civil servants are to bear the full responsibility and Ministers are to escape scot free, he will seriously misjudge the public mood and he may ill serve his party, his Government and the country.
This is an important debate, first, because the trust between the Government and the people has broken down. This is not a narrow, party political point. There is ample polling evidence, both private and public, to testify to the cynicism with which politicians and Government are now regarded. That may not be surprising in view of the broken promises. Before the general election, the

687
Government promised reductions in taxation and no increase in value added tax. After the general election, they did something entirely different. They said one thing before the election but did another after it. The Conservative party is governing in the interests of the few rather than the many, which is undermining trust between the Government and the people.
The story of the fat cats is the most graphic illustration of how the Government now govern in the interests of only the few. In contradiction to what the Chancellor of the Duchy claimed, it is my perception that the people feel that they have no influence over the services for which they pay, which they use and in which they work. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Government had done a great deal. He should talk to people in the health service, even the consultants and the people on the NHS trust boards, who often feel that they have no influence over the shape of the services that they have been appointed by Ministers to administer.
The right hon. Gentleman touched on the quango state and said that by centralising power he was increasing ministerial responsibility, so the whole argument about the quango state and the democratic deficit was bogus. He claimed that the Government had reduced the number of quangos. That may be true if we accept the Government's definition of a quango—which excludes NHS trusts and other bodies such as training and enterprise councils.
I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman would deny that many of the services that are now administered through quangos were once within the influence of local government and therefore democratically accountable to the electorate. That accountability has been removed. The quango state accounts for some £34 billion or more of public expenditure, but few of the quangos bear any real relation to the people who use the services and in whose areas those services are administered.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed some virtue in the imposition of the Nolan recommendations on appointments. I welcome what Nolan said—that appointments to quangos should be open, transparent and on merit, rather than on party position. The Labour party is committed to embracing those recommendations. It is rather rich of the Government to claim virtue in Nolan's recommendations; it is no wonder that Members of Parliament and Ministers are less popular than journalists and estate agents. The Tories have become a "Not me, guy" Government. They love the language of individual responsibility—and as an unreconstructed Protestant I do not object to that—yet they disclaim all responsibility.
The Government claim that unemployment is nothing to do with them. There was a time, for some 25 years or more after the war, when a high and stable level of employment was the objective of Governments of all complexions. Now, unemployment is nothing to do with the Government, but that does not prevent them from claiming credit for falling unemployment.
What about the two recessions during the past decade—the longest and deepest recessions since the war? Once again, they were nothing to do with the Government. They were all to do with an international recession. Yet the Government all too readily claim the credit for Britain being the leading economy in Europe.
Let us think back to Black Wednesday. Once again, that was nothing to do with the Government. No one resigned, even though we are now told that at the time the
688
Chancellor wanted to resign, but the Prime Minister pleaded with him not to do so. That is hardly surprising, because the man who took the country into the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong rate, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, was the previous Chancellor—who then became the Prime Minister. Black Wednesday was nothing to do with the Government, yet they love to claim the credit for the half-competent economic strategy they stumbled into when their policy was blown out of the water.
Crime has doubled since the Government came to power—but that, they say, has nothing to do with them. Yet the Prime Minister claims the credit for the recent drop in the crime statistics. What about schools? It may be thought that there is currently something of a crisis in state school standards. The Government have been in power for 17 years, yet apparently this crisis is nothing to do with them, but much more to do with Labour or Liberal Democrat-controlled local education authorities and the education establishment. It is nothing to do with the Government.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have been listening intently to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that the responsibility for education standards lay with Labour councils. Can he explain why a parent in the Labour-controlled borough of Southwark feels she has to put her child in a school in Conservative-controlled Bromley? Why does he think that another parent in the Labour borough of Lewisham feels that he has to put his child in private education? What are the Labour councils in those two boroughs and elsewhere throughout the country doing about that? They are responsible for the delivery of education.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I did not say that standards in schools were the responsibility of Labour-controlled councils; I said that that is what the Government are claiming. After 17 years in control of the nation's education, all they can do is blame others. They say that it is nothing to do with the Government and everything to do with other people.
The Government claim that all those matters are nothing to do with them. When the voters' heavy hand is felt on their collar, they say, "It's not us, guy. Don't blame us, we're only the Government." So those who are quick to apportion individual responsibility in and to others deny all individual and collective ministerial responsibility. Yet it was the Prime Minister, in a frank interview in the United States not long ago, who admitted that, after so many years of Conservative government, there was no one left to blame.
The case for ministerial responsibility is constitutionally at the very heart of this debate about trust in the political process. I strongly agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said.
Ministerial responsibility is at the heart of our bringing the Executive to account. It has long been my view that the Executive is far too powerful in our system of government, and that the House of Commons is ill equipped to bring the Executive to account. The best development of recent years has been in the Select Committees, which have gone a long way to improving the way in which we can bring the Executive to account, but there is still a very long way to go.

689
I should have thought that ministerial resignations would have given us some idea of how effective the House is in bringing Ministers to account. A long list of Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries have resigned since 1992. Although all kinds of reasons have been given for those resignations, which I shall not go into, as far as I can tell not one of them resigned because they admitted some deficiency in the policy, operations or activities of their Departments or any of the agencies for which they were responsible. Indeed, a former Minister felt that so deeply that he said:
"no one ever resigns for anything these days".
According to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the actions of their Departments and agencies. They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public and must not knowingly mislead Parliament. If they do so, they should resign, according to a letter from the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) that was dated 15 April 1994. So Ministers, and only Ministers, are accountable to Parliament, yet, according to the Government, Ministers are not responsible for all actions in the sense of being blameworthy.
The House would not want me to enter into a comprehensive analysis of the concepts of accountability and responsibility, suffice it to refer Members to paragraphs 118 to 138 of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee fifth report. I concurred with the Select Committee when it said in its report:
"We find the government's attempt to draw a sharp distinction between accountability, which cannot be delegated by Ministers, and responsibility which can, unconvincing."
The debate has become crucial with the fragmentation of the civil service under next steps agencies and privatisation. Ministers are able to claim the credit for all that is good in their Departments and agencies and delegate the blame to others. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seemed to suggest that claiming credit for what was going on in the Department was as reprehensible as delegating blame. I just do not recognise that behaviour in the Government—or, indeed, in any other Government. Ministers are all too ready to claim the credit and delegate the blame to others. Indeed, next steps agencies and privatisation have encouraged that.
On the exchange across the Floor of the House on the Prison Service, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I simply ask whether the Home Secretary would have escaped resignation if the Prison Service had been part of his Department rather than a next steps agency? That serious question deserves serious consideration.
If the House accepts my submission that there is a serious problem over trust between the governed and the governors, Parliament should be addressing it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has outlined an ambitious programme of constitutional and democratic renewal, including a freedom of information Act to address the issue. The Government have dismissed it—not as inadequate but as positively dangerous—yet they have advanced no alternative. Their alarmingly self-congratulatory and complacent amendment shows that they do not even recognise the problem.
690
Sooner or later, someone in the Government must accept responsibility for something. The Scott report will present an opportunity for the Government to show whether they govern in the interests of all the people or whether everything is to be judged in terms of their own survival.
5.45 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: When I looked at today's Order Paper, I must admit that I was extremely puzzled as to what the debate was to be about. The motion refers to
"the principle of ministerial responsibility".
I could not help thinking that, on such a busy day, the Prime Minister's extremely important statement could have been followed by a debate on important, relevant matters. After all, there are few enough days on which the Liberal Democrats can choose the subject. We could have discussed the very important matter of education, which was mentioned earlier, or the national health service, or perhaps have risen higher, to a debate on European or foreign affairs. But not a bit of it—the debate is on ministerial responsibility.
With great enthusiasm, therefore, I came to the Chamber to listen to the speech of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). To my surprise, I heard a speech on the Scott report. I thought that the Scott report was to be published on Thursday, when a statement will be made on it, after which we shall carry—or stagger away with—the vast volumes of the report, wrap towels around our heads and consider it very carefully over the weekend and the days ahead. We know that we are to have a full debate on the Scott report, although I am sure that I shall not have the opportunity to catch Madam Speaker's eye during that debate as the good and the great will tend to be called before me—including the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, who will no doubt have something to say on the subject.
Why is today's debate clearly aimed at the Scott report? Could it be a soundbite trailer for the learned words of the Liberal Democrats? It is not clear. The subject that has been selected for debate for half a day refers to either cynicism or incompetence. If we are to debate ministerial responsibility, which is in many ways academic and at the heart of the British constitution, it could have been dealt with much more thoroughly. We had to wait for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to address the substance of this somewhat dull yet important and complex constitutional matter.
The rather dull speeches from the previous Front-Bench spokesmen were surpassed by that of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), which was even duller. I happened to note that, during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, his Liberal Democrat colleagues yawned. In fact, most were absent, and only two are present now. I for one—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The occupant of the Chair will be yawning if we do not get back to the topic in question.
Mr. Arnold: For my own education, I shall be listening carefully to other contributions to the debate, and I will

691
listen with great enthusiasm to the speeches that we shall no doubt hear from numerous Liberal Democrat Back Benchers on their chosen subject.
Yes, ministerial responsibility is a matter of great importance. We expect Ministers to come to the House and take responsibility for their decisions. Given the subject of the motion, I find it odd that, in their soundbites the Liberal Democrats frequently promise all kinds of constitutional reforms under which they would arbitrarily hand the powers of this House to other, far less established institutions. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has gone on many a rural ramble around the country to give his views on how the House's responsibility for various matters should be delegated. Indeed, I heard him say on television in May 1994:
"I don't believe in the sovereignty of Parliament".
Ministerial responsibility is a wonderful thing and Ministers should be responsible to Parliament, but how can the Liberal Democrats take that approach if their leader claims not to believe in the sovereignty of Parliament?
Many is the time the House has sat late at night to consider motions relating to European Community legislation. I sometimes wonder what good it would do if we took a differing view. The House should be sovereign, but so many of its powers have already been delegated to European institutions, and things could only get worse if we followed Liberal Democrat policy. We know that the Liberal Democrats would abandon the veto on European decisions and grant the European Parliament responsibilities that would reduce the power of this House. How could Ministers come to the House and take responsibility for actions if sovereignty over those actions no longer rested with them? In that sense, it is perhaps appropriate that the motion refers to
"erosion … of the principle of ministerial responsibility".
One of Ministers' most important responsibilities is to answer to the House for the spending of taxpayers' money. An increasingly large amount of the money raised by British taxpayers—it can now be counted in billions of pounds—is being passed to the European Union to spend. How the spending of that money is accounted for is extremely important. I cannot help thinking that, if Ministers were exposed to Liberal Democrat proposals for the extension of qualified majority voting in Europe, they would be overruled time and again on vital British interests. They would then have to come to the House and say that, because of Liberal Democrat policy, they could not answer to the House for decisions with which they may well have disagreed, so Liberal Democrat policies are hardly the solution. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East say from a sedentary position, "Like fishing".
In the example of fishing, the threat comes from the European Union to which the Liberal Democrats would sacrifice all powers, so fishing is not an especially sensible matter to raise.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The House is lost in admiration at the depth of the hon. Gentleman's grasp of the important constitutional doctrine of ministerial responsibility. As he is so exercised about such matters, he must surely recognise that, in relation to fishing, for example, majority voting rules. That concession was made by Parliament and, indeed, by the Government he supports—no doubt because they believed that it was in the best interests of Great Britain.
Mr. Arnold: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the concession to Europe. I am suggesting that the road down which the Liberal Democrats would lead us, were the country to allow them, would end in still more qualified majority voting. British interests could not then be defended, but that does not seem to worry the hon. and learned Gentleman, not least because his party is a federalist party. It would pass much more power up the way—perhaps "across the way" is a better phrase—to Brussels and various European Community institutions. What price ministerial responsibility then?
Under their federalist policies, the Liberals support regional government, which would be a further abrogation of the powers of this House. Whatever the Scots may want, I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that my constituents would certainly have no truck with regional government, which would mean yet another layer of politicians and bureaucrats, and no doubt more heavy spending and the imposition of further taxes. From my constituents' point of view, the idea of regional government for the south-east, from Reading in Berkshire around the other side of London, would be especially disastrous. My constituents would far rather that I come here as their representative and try to hold Ministers to account. That is far more effective.
In a slight digression, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to the Home Secretary's accountability to the House. In the European context, I wonder how any Home Secretary could be answerable to the House, or the country, for Liberal Democrat proposals on, for instance, the dispersal of refugees. How could any Home Secretary answer for the Liberal Democrats' favourite policies, which were passed at their conference, on the decriminalisation of prostitution and the possession of cannabis? I doubt whether any of those would go down very well.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made much of quangos. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly pointed out, although the Liberal Democrats claim not to believe in quangos, they would, given the chance, create them. Indeed, at the last count they had proposed almost 900 new ones. They include such wonderful things as an office of utility regulation to regulate the regulators, an animal protection commission, an arms conversion agency and, in every local authority across the country—not least in my constituency—a local enterprise agency. Every district would also have a local housing arbitration agency. I am not sure what that means, but it is Liberal Democrat policy. No doubt the Liberal Democrats would place their defeated candidates on such quangos.
I firmly believe that one of the greatest strengths of our constitution is the fact that Members of Parliament are solely responsible for separate constituencies on whose behalf they come to the House to obtain from the relevant Ministers detailed answers on matters of concern to their constituents. I am sure that the constituents of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East appreciate having a sole Member of Parliament responsible to them and fighting their corner here in Westminster. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot pass the buck; he has to take up all the issues—or clearly be seen not to take up issues—and hold Ministers responsible for their actions, particularly those affecting his constituents. That is something that I try to do. Yet the very mechanism for

693
holding Ministers responsible would be undermined by the Liberal Democrats' policy of proportional representation.
I am one of seven Members representing west Kent. Under proportional representation, west Kent would still have seven Members, but to which constituents would they be responsible? Those Members could pick and choose. They could tell a constituent to go to a Member of Parliament from the party for which the constituent voted, and they might or might not hold Ministers responsible for some issues. It is important that constituents have an individual Member of Parliament who answers to them and who comes to Parliament to fight for them, wherever they may be.
Proportional representation would mean not only that individual Members who were solely responsible for their constituencies would no longer be able to hold Ministers responsible; the very mechanism for forming a Government would damage that ministerial responsibility. Whereas our constituents now know when Members are returned at a general election which party is likely to form a Government, under the Liberal Democrat proposal they would not know. The formation of the Government, and therefore ministerial responsibility to this House, would depend on backroom deals, smoke-filled rooms, unsatisfactory compromises and the like.
We do not need the type of reform touched on by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested a referendum on proportional representation, or the undemocratic imposition of PR proposed by the Liberal Democrats. We would end up with a hung Parliament, in which one or two Liberal Democrats—it remains to be seen whether they would be here in the Chamber—would take a minor part in forming a Government.
Then again, would they support the Government? If one is to support the Government and allow Ministers to carry out their responsibilities properly, one has to turn up to vote in support of the Government. Yet only last week the hon. Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) voted against their leader's and their party's policy on a motion relating to GP fundholders, while the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Ms Nicholson) is not in the habit of turning up, and certainly did not vote in support of the previous Liberal Democrat motion before the House.
In conclusion, we had a magnificent opportunity today to have a debate that was not subject to the decisions and programme-planning of the Government. All Back Benchers could have looked forward to a motion from a minority party, the Liberal Democrats, on a subject of great relevance and interest to our constituents. Instead, we got a motion on a subject so boring that it has attracted only two Liberal Democrat Members into the Chamber, while most of our colleagues have gone out to attend to their constituency duties.
6.3 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I heard the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Unfortunately, he missed the first 15 minutes of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who began speaking at 4.40 pm. The hon. Gentleman came in at 4.55 pm, although he may have been listening to the speech outwith the Chamber.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am sure you recall, I was in the Chamber. I had to leave for five minutes to check Hansard, but I can assure you that I was here for the overwhelming majority of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
Dr. Godman: Naturally, I accept the hon. Gentleman's word, although his absence was noticeable.
I agree about the need for a debate in the near future on the Government's handling of Northern Ireland and on reaction to the dreadful event in London on Friday. I heard the explosion from my apartment in the Barbican, and I said to my wife that I could not believe that yet again it was the foul work of the IRA. We also heard the explosion at the Baltic Exchange a few years ago.
I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Gravesham about electoral reform, which would make for much better governance. I am not happy with the system of proportional representation advocated by the Liberal Democrats, but I think that we need a new system. We shall have such a system when we introduce the Scottish parliament. I much prefer the added Member system to that of proportional representation.
I can well understand why the hon. Member for Gravesham's constituents have no taste for regional government, but the overwhelming majority of my constituents desire that radical change. Their desire is reflected in electors' votes in local and national elections, in which Conservative candidates invariably finish in fourth position, a long way behind—I regret to say, in some respects—candidates of the Scottish National party.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East was anxious to emphasise that a number of issues on which he sought answers were prompted by hypothetical questions, and he chided me for daring to refer—however tangentially—to the Scott report. I was simply making an observation on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about ministerial responsibility and the code of ministerial conduct. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a powerful speech, and I offer my compliments to him.
I did not share the Chancellor of the Duchy's sanguine view of quangos, of which many of my constituents are deeply suspicious, especially their membership. In Scotland, members of quangos have been appointed over the years on a party political basis. No matter what party is in power, it is a disgrace if the governance of Scotland is carried out in that way. It is a disgraceful state of affairs when people are chosen on the basis of party allegiance, rather than—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said—on the basis of their qualifications and capability for the post concerned.
The Chancellor of the Duchy made a number of points about the market testing of public resources and agencies. Where do the Government stand on the market testing of the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service? The Minister may not be able to answer today, but I know that he will, with characteristic courtesy, write to me on the matter. The RMAS is being tested, and it is a very important issue to constituents of mine who are employed by the service in Greenock. They give, in my view, valuable and loyal service to the RMAS. They deserve to be kept fully informed about their future; given the fine work that they do in the Firth of Clyde and elsewhere, they should not be treated callously and thoughtlessly. I should be grateful for a ministerial response to that serious constituency point.

695
There are points to be made about other agencies. Why do Home Office Ministers treat those awaiting deportation in Scotland differently from people caught up in similar circumstances south of the border? We are discussing ministerial responsibility, and Ministers' treatment of individuals. Surely, whatever the circumstances, there should be some uniformity throughout the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister is not responsible for such matters, but males awaiting deportation in Scotland are invariably incarcerated in Greenock prison. That is unfair to those involved, and not very conducive to the good management of the prison. It would be far better for men awaiting deportation to be detained in a holding centre at Glasgow airport.
Let me point out, with respect to hon. Members representing constituencies south of the border, that such holding centres exist at their main airports. Governor Gunn and his first-class staff should not have to look after detainees in Greenock prison, which is often overcrowded at the best of times. Could not the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Scottish Prison Service persuade the BAA to make a site available at Glasgow airport? That would be an example of good ministerial management. If Home Office Ministers have United Kingdomwide responsibility for such matters, they should ensure that there is more uniformity on both sides of the border.
I seem to be skipping around in my references to Departments, but I believe that the Minister said that there were 110 agencies. Is it feasible for Sir Len Peach to investigate the implications of the severe cut in the action for community employment budget in Northern Ireland? Is that one of his responsibilities? Ministerial responsibility is of prime importance in the context of that savage cut: Northern Ireland Ministers have been grossly irresponsible. ACE provides employment in both traditions, and has helped to unite the two communities in the provision of assistance for people of all ages.
Such initiatives—introduced by the present Government in a principled way—help to diminish some of the hostility and alienation that are experienced in both communities. I feel, especially in the light of Friday's dreadful incident, that such initiatives make for a more tolerable society in Northern Ireland. I hope that Northern Ireland Ministers will be honest enough to admit that they have made a mistake, and that they should reverse their decision forthwith in the interests of those directly concerned. A cut of £12.5 million in ACE's budget may seem an insignificant aspect of ministerial decision making, but it has an important effect on the voluntary organisations involved and on both communities in Northern Ireland.
I appreciate that an immensely difficult task faces Northern Ireland Ministers. I travel to Northern Ireland fairly frequently, as I do to the Republic—I shall be going to Northern Ireland next week—and I recognise the difficulties involved in governing the Six Counties, given the hostility and resentment that exist in both communities; but a brutal fact will determine what takes place over the next few months, or even the next two or three years. The IRA and Sinn Fein are remorselessly pursuing the goal of a united Ireland. That cannot be achieved while the nationalists in the north are in a minority, but the community of two communities can be made a more tolerable place in which to live, and that can be achieved through ministerial responsibility.
696
Let me add, at a much less serious level, that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which Ministers govern Scotland, and it is shared by the overwhelming majority of my constituents. Major changes will have to be made in the governance of Scotland, whichever Minister is in a position to make them. The status quo is now acceptable to less than 12 per cent. of the population.
6.17 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I shall not follow the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), which consisted mostly of constituency points. I want to refer directly to the motion, which not many hon. Members have done.
The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was based on a popular myth. Although that myth enjoys great currency, I do the hon. and learned Gentleman the credit of saying that I believe him to know that it is a myth. The myth is that a Minister can and should take immediate responsibility for the smallest action that emanates from his Department, and for what happens at the furthest outpost.
As I have done before in the House, I illustrate that with the story of the man who hammered the table at my advice bureau and asked why John Major had not bothered to send his benefit cheque that week. One understands what he meant, but did he seriously believe that John Major had a bit of a down on him, and that the Government were simply being mean to him? Apparently he did. That may seem a silly story, but it characterises the way in which people view what Ministers should be doing. A Minister should "know" what is happening to transactions that, although small, are important to individuals, but that simply is not the case. Not only is the move to executive agencies in line with what is happening in the rest of the world; it must be the right course.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke about the framework. It is always going to be difficult to get the framework right. Almost everybody understands that we need to make a division between policy and operational matters, but getting it right is difficult. Some cases are easier than others—sometimes it is clear what is policy and what is operational. I accept that in the Prison Service, for example, it is difficult to define what is policy and what is operational.
Some dividing lines have been drawn more successfully than others. The establishment of a board to advise the chief executive and the Minister is crucial. When I had responsibility for some agencies, the advice that I received from an independent adviser from the business community was invaluable not only in understanding what was going on but in being able to have some control over what the agency was doing.
Ministers should not be discouraged by the fact that there are teething troubles. Some of the problems may not be teething troubles but matters in respect of which we will always argue—for example, whether they are operational or policy and whether we have got the dividing line right. That should not discourage them from a ploughing on with this course because it is right. When the management structure is right, it becomes clearer what people should do. If people who work in an arm of

697
government know that if they make a complete Horlicks of something, the Minister will get the blame, what is there to make them take the responsibility that they should? It is there that the charters play such a key role.
The charters are best described as a 10-year project of process management. People should examine what they do. The person at the sharp end, the person who is organising at the sharp end and the person who organises a variety of sharp ends—if I can put it that way—should take responsibility for delivering that service. They should not blame the Government or say that it is the Minister's fault. They should say, "I am managing," or, "I am working on this counter. I am taking responsibility for that action." That is process management. There can be no doubt that it has worked.
The combination of the executive agencies and, to an extent, the charters has not only improved the Benefits Agency but transformed it. The service that my constituents get from the Benefits Agency is not perfect. We do not live in a perfect world and mistakes are made. It is a complicated business to administer, but the service that is delivered to my constituents has been transformed.
It is important to be able to identify areas in which performance can be improved. It is not enough only to measure the success. Analysis of public perceptions is crucial. Unless a service is responsive to those perceptions, there can be no real improvement. That is true across the public sector. Service providers increasingly accept that they have to set standards for services and achieve measurable improvements in service delivery. Those who carry out regular customer satisfaction surveys, market research, focus groups and customer panels are much more likely to identify the failings in the service that they provide. The outcomes of such activities inevitably lead to change.
For example, the relatively new patients charter sets challenging targets based on the results of surveys and market research on what users expect and want from our national health service. Thanks to the original charter, nobody waits two years for treatment, and all hip, knee and cataract operations are performed within 18 months. Today, we have had the welcome news that the 18-month deadline guarantee for in-patients that was set in the new patients charter has been met in almost all circumstances, and that soon we should be able to meet it in full.
Why did the Government move from a two-year guarantee to an 18-month one? It was not just the whim of a Minister or because somebody was trying to get publicity. It was because consultation showed that that was what the public expected and wanted from their national health service. They wanted the 18-month guarantee, they wanted nine out of 10 out-patients to be seen within 13 weeks, they wanted new standards for GPs and they wanted the charter to cover the service given by pharmacists and opticians as well as dentists. They wanted choice and information.
There are other examples that I do not have time to go into, but the core of the matter is information. Opposition Members have spoken as though all information has always been available and it has always been reasonable to expect to know what is going on. That is simply not true. Before the Government instituted citizens charters, much of the information on which public service delivery
698
is now based was not available. It is all very well for the Opposition to talk about standards in education, but how do they know what the standards are? How do they know what service was delivered before?
When, a long time ago, I was the Conservative candidate in the old constituency of Stepney and Poplar, there was a school with new buildings and good facilities that had an interesting record. For two years running, it did not have a single examination pass. There were many schools of that sort, especially in working-class areas. People were being let down, but nobody was collecting the information. Nobody knew what was expected from those schools or what the schools were delivering. Thanks to the opening up of government and the availability of information, one service after another is being opened for public inspection.
We know precisely what our railways are delivering, so we will know precisely what improvements are made—and we believe firmly that there will be improvements—by the privatised service. We know what the courts are delivering and what the Benefits Agency is doing because they have to publish targets and people know how they are performing against them.
For the past four years, the examination results of every school and college have been published annually. As a parent with children in school, I believe that it is helpful to have the data necessary to be able to choose the best possible school for one's, children; otherwise, decisions are based on hearsay. I know what the schools in my area were like 10 or 20 years ago but I would not know now without examination results on which to base and inform my opinion.
The Government have done a great deal to open up government. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) mentioned the Select Committees as if they were part of the background and always had been. A Conservative Government introduced departmental Select Committees, which have transformed the way in which the House works. They have enhanced the House's ability to hold the Executive to account. I do not think that one will find any Minister in the Conservative Administration since 1979 who does not take Select Committees seriously. An appearance before a Select Committee is terrifying for a Minister. I am pleased to say that I never had to do it, but I know that Ministers spend a great deal of time briefing themselves and that they take very seriously what is said by the Select Committees.
Select Committees do a valuable job and they are a welcome part of the checks and balances of democracy, but I question whether too much credence is sometimes given to a Select Committee report when it has perhaps been based on a transitory look at a problem with substantially less information, back-up and research than is available to any Minister.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and said that there was something deficient in it. He is lucky to be able to do so. This Prime Minister published it; no one would have been able to talk about it before. Nor would anyone have been able to refer to Cabinet Committees, and I do not merely mean their composition, as it was a long-standing convention under successive Governments of different colours that one did not mention them. It was not admitted that the Government had them. Now we can discuss what they do, we know who is on them and influence can be brought to bear on them.

699
The work done by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Office of Public Service to make quangos more accountable, cut down their numbers, publish public bodies and improve the public appointments system is very welcome indeed. Those are not simply things that have been forced on them, but part of a long-term trend for this Government, who believe in open government.
The civil service cannot be a sacred or static entity. It has to evolve and change with a changing background. It has to change with circumstances. Civil servants are often disgracefully smeared by the Opposition and sneered at as being on the side of the Government. That is partly because they cannot answer back. My experience is that, almost without exception, civil servants are loyal to the Government. They are discreet and are committed to good government and to the Government in power. They are keen to engage in intelligent and private debate.
But that is the point—the civil servants who engage in private debate with this Government and who are loyal to this Government would be equally loyal to any Government elected. Indeed, many of the senior civil servants around today served Labour Ministers, often as private or assistant private secretaries. Undoubtedly, as I know from friends in the Labour party, they were 100 per cent. loyal to them, just as they are 100 per cent. loyal to the Government and would be loyal to any future Government. I had no idea what the politics of the civil servants with whom I worked were and I did not want to know; it was not relevant.
Some Opposition Members should tone down some of their criticism of civil servants. I know they think that they are making a point against the Government, but they are sneering at civil servants who are doing their best.
Mr. Derek Foster: Nothing has been said on that subject throughout the debate. I wonder what point the hon. Gentleman is making.
Mr. Hughes: I am talking about remarks that I have repeatedly heard in the House. I have never heard the right hon. Gentleman do so, but Opposition Members, including Labour Front Benchers, have made insinuations against the integrity of the civil service. We should understand where civil servants stand. We need to be proud of the legacy of our civil service and to understand that its daily achievements are important to our nation and to good government and that we should not do anything that would jeopardise it. The changes that my right hon and hon. Friends are bringing about in the civil service will enhance rather than damage it.
6.34 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: I shall be speedy, as realise that Front-Bench Members and the Liberal Democrat spokesman wish to reply to the debate.
I will not take this point too far, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said that the debate was boring. I have listened and found it extremely interesting, although it has obviously not ignited the interest of the whole House.
The noteworthy part of the introduction to this debate was doubtless the source of the discussion on ministerial responsibility. Without wanting to criticise them, the Liberal Democrats can stand on Olympian heights, as theirs is the party that is furthest from real ministerial
700
responsibility—so one notes what they say. Yet the debate was introduced by a very learned member of that party—the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). His principle—it is the principle that one needs to take apart—was that breach of a convention damages the constitution. Certainly that is true. Doubtless he based that on the Maxwell-Fyfe principles. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster alluded to that.
Indeed, enlarging the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), one has to understand that there has been a huge expansion of responsibility and of day-to-day operations in the administration of Government. At the time of the Crichel Down case, only 3 million people were employed by the public sector. Even after 17 years of Conservative government and of shedding responsibilities and manpower, we still employ 5 million in that sector.
A Front-Bench Member with responsibility for the health service and for a million staff told me that he was responsible—nonsense as it was—for the swab left inside a patient in Carlisle. He employed a million people. Each day, his Department took trillions of decisions, yet, in some people's eyes, he was responsible for every single one of those decisions.
Miss Emma Nicholson: May I ask my good friend from the Government side how he squares that comment with the knowledge—which he might not have at his fingertips—that, according to a Treasury decision taken by a Treasury QC, as a result of parliamentary questions that I asked, a Secretary of State for Health has personal ownership of every NHS patient's health record?
Mr. Booth: I am grateful for that intervention because it underlines the necessity to make those opaque waters clear. The debate gives us the opportunity to look at those opaque waters. We had illumination passed on them last week by Sir Robin Butler. I was about to say as I was interrupted that Sir Robin, head of the civil service, gave an example, which was germane and which will illuminate the rest of this debate. He explained the difference between accountability and responsibility, and said that, as the head of the civil service, he might go into the Cabinet Office and meet a security guard who was drunk. He said that he had never met a drunken security guard and he hoped he never would, but, if he did, the security guard would be responsible for his drunken behaviour whereas Sir Robin himself, as head of the Cabinet Office, would be accountable for it. That analogy makes the difference and it gives the lie to, and points to the mistake behind, the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
I hope that the House will support the Government because, alone among the parties, the Conservative party may be trusted with ministerial responsibility.
6.40 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) put his finger on at least one important facet of the debate when he drew attention to the recent remarks by Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary. Sir Robin sought to draw a distinction between ministerial accountability and ministerial

701
responsibility. It is a fashionable distinction, but in fact it is rather a new one. I believe that it is one that the Government are seeking to elaborate with a view to diminishing the central core pillar of our parliamentary democracy.
The distinction is reflected in many documents for which the Government have been responsible, most recently in their supplementary White Paper about the civil service code. The distinction was reflected in the debate on the prison escapes by the Home Secretary, who sought to evade criticism altogether on the grounds that, although the escapes fell within the responsibility of the Prison Service and were so grave that they ultimately led to him to dismiss the director of the Prison Service, they were not a matter for which he as Minister had responsibility.
One has only to recall those facts to recognise how the doctrine is being changed. I do not suggest that that is part of a systematic rewriting of our unwritten constitution. I suggest rather that it is a consequence, and not altogether a happy consequence, of the changes in the form and structure of government, which have been directed more to efficiency and effectiveness than to the sustaining of the doctrines that have made our constitutional arrangements highly regarded in other parts of the world.
A statement was made some years ago which I prefer to the doctrine of the division of accountability and responsibility. The statement shows how quickly the Government have managed to alter public perceptions, or have sought to do so, and it was made by Sir Ian Bancroft, the former head of the home civil service. When he gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1982, he said:
"The Minister in charge of a department … is responsible, and accountable to Parliament, for the effectiveness of his department's policies and the efficient and economical use of the resources allocated to it. It is part of that responsibility to ensure that his department has the systems, procedures, organisation and staffing necessary to promote efficient management."
I suggest that Sir Ian did not attempt to draw a clear distinction between responsibility and accountability, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did when he spoke earlier. The Minister expressed a narrow, confining view of accountability, under which Ministers would not take responsibility for the mistakes of which they had no personal knowledge or for the misjudgments that had led to maladministration. If we accepted that view, it would not merely become conventional for the House of Commons to excuse Ministers on the grounds of lack of knowledge—that has certainly been the case in the past—but be argued that it was even improper for the House of Commons to inquire into the mistakes. That we have moved some way in that direction seems to me to be the almost ineluctable consequence of the establishment of the next steps agencies.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has argued strongly that civil servants themselves, certainly the heads of the next steps agencies, should be accountable to the House and should come to answer questions about the discharge of their responsibilities. That is a debatable and important point, but I am bound to say that that would stand our constitution entirely on its head. I am not wholly persuaded that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is right to recommend
702
such a new approach to the responsibilities of civil servants. Our country has benefited from having an independent civil service that is non-partisan and non-political.
We need to hold someone responsible and to be able to call someone to account. Conventionally, that person has been the Minister, but if that has changed, we must seriously consider the politicisation of the civil service and all that flows from it. I find that a very disturbing trend, and a much more serious issue than the Minister seemed to allow.
The debate has been brief, but valuable. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) called the debate trivial and yet at the same time, slightly contradictorily, he said that it touched on the core of our constitution. He should decide the issue for himself before he comes to the House to make a speech. The other contributions were rather more serious. I have a very brief time available to speak and I hope that those who contributed so thoughtfully to the debate will forgive me if I do not mention all their speeches.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mention his support for a system of proportional representation, albeit not that which my party advocates. I was especially impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), which was very considered and thoughtful, and much less partisan than his speeches on some occasions.
The importance of the debate, and of the subject matter with which we have wrestled, is enhanced by the fact that a very important report—one which has been three years in preparation—will be published on Thursday. The subject matter of that report is utterly germane to the debate. I know that some people will believe that that report cannot be dealt with adequately in questions and answers following its publication on Thursday. I hope that we shall have a proper opportunity to consider the implications for ministerial responsibility to which it may give rise.
I must tell those on the Government Front Bench that I have been disturbed by evidence of systematic attempts to criticise and devalue the report even before it has been published. The inquiry's procedures have been questioned, but I considered them robust but fair because they allowed the fullest possible comment on allegations by all against whom they have been made. I take the profoundest issue with Lord Howe, who has suggested that the inquiry should have been conducted in an adversarial manner. Such a method is quite unsuited to getting at the truth.
The Government may argue that the Scott report fortifies the Government's commitment to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, and that, by appointing an inquiry, the Government were giving strength to that. I would simply say that the inquiry was not the only way in which the Government could have proceeded. At least one Minister—the Attorney-General—was highly familiar with all the facets of the affair. That was made plain by the extent to which he sought to suppress evidence that might have been of value to the defence in the Matrix Churchill case.
Instead of setting up the expensive and thorough Scott inquiry, it would have been open to Ministers simply to make a clean breast of the affair to the House. That would have been a discharge of responsibility that the country

703
would have understood. That would have strengthened the Government's claim to care for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) invited hon. Members to rise above party politics, but that may have been a rather optimistic thought, faced with the winding-up speech in a Supply day debate. We have been particularly urged to rise up above party politics and not to prejudge the Scott report. I have not read it, and I will not comment on it today, save to say that in the past three years we have experienced conspicuous attempts to prejudge that report led by, for example, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I must say that I thought that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seemed to prejudge the way in which the Government had set up that inquiry.
Some questions have been asked about accountability and responsibility. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked about the distinction between the two. Perhaps it will help the House if I try to explain the distinction that we are making. The terminology may or may not be new, but the terminology is not the point; the thought behind the terminology is an old and well-established one.
The thought is that a Minister is accountable to Parliament for everything that goes on within his or her Department, in the sense that Parliament can call the Minister to account for it. The Minister, however, is responsible for the policies of the Department, including its agencies; for the framework within which those policies are delivered; for the resources allocated; for such decisions as the framework document held by next steps agency heads may require to be referred to him; and for responding to major failures or expressions of parliamentary or public concern.
A Minister cannot, however, be sensibly held to be responsible for everything that goes on in his Department in the sense of having personal knowledge and control of every action taken, and being personally blameworthy when tasks in relation to which he has no personal involvement are carried out incompetently.
Mr. Beith: If a Minister has intervened in a way that does not fit within the list of principles that the Minister has just given, is he then responsible for the consequences of his intervention?
Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman may have in mind the Prison Service, which I shall consider in a moment.
The explanation is that accountability is exercised for everything that goes on in the Department, and responsibility for matters for which the Minister can legitimately be held personally responsible. If one tries to extend personal responsibility to everything that goes on within a Department, the doctrine in effect becomes meaningless and incredible.
Miss Emma Nicholson: The Minister has properly pointed out that it is the thinking behind his remarks that
704
counts. Is not the law, however, forcing Ministers into the position that the motion decries? For example, a recent ruling states that children are the property of the Crown. Ministers are, of course, Ministers of the Crown. A recent Queen's Counsel ruling to which I have already referred states that ownership of health records rests solely with the Secretary of State for Health. Surely such decisions on property and ownership give the lie to the statement that accountability and responsibility do not lie with Ministers. Property and ownership mean that one is responsible and accountable for those things that one owns.
Mr. Willetts: That is a rather eccentric point, but one which we should expect from a member of the Liberal Democrats.
I am trying to address the fundamental doctrine about ministerial accountability and responsibility. The Prison Service offers a clear example of how that doctrine applies in practice. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the Prison Service, and it is his responsibility to lay down its policies. He is accountable and responsible to Parliament for those policies, but responsibility for day-to-day management has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service. In his report, Sir John Learmont made no criticism of the Home Secretary's policies, but made serious criticisms about the way in which the Prison Service had been run.
Mr. Derek Foster: If the Home Secretary continually interferes in operational matters within the Prison Service—I do not necessarily blame him for doing so if political issues arise in the House or in the tabloids—and makes the operation of the service impossible, what is the position on responsibility and accountability?
Mr. Willetts: Ministers are, of course, entitled to intervene in specific operational matters. Should information come to Ministers' attention that policy is not being properly implemented or that an operational matter is causing concern, they would be failing in their duty to Parliament and to the public if they ignored such information and did nothing.
In the few minutes left to me, I should like to make a small number of simple points that have been lost in the elaborate arguments of the debate. First, many claims were made about membership of quangos and appointments to them. I have done some research on such appointments, and I discovered that, in 1979, the last year of the previous Labour Government, there were 39 members of the Trades Union Congress general council. I invite hon. Members to consider how many appointments to public bodies those 39 members may have held. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty."] I hear 20, but no, not even 50. [HON. MEMBERS: "A hundred."] No, the answer is more than 100. [HON. MEMBERS: "One hundred and fifty."] The answer is more than that. Those 39 members of the TUC general council had between them 180 public appointments. That is an average of four and a half each.
That approach to appointments to quangos quite understandably brought that Labour Government into disrepute. It is in striking contrast to our approach—I address in particular the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—with the appointment of Sir Len Peach. In his role of scrutinising

705
public appointments, he ensures that they are all proper and correct. If there is any known political background to someone who receives a public appointment, that is made publicly known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) made some important points about the policies of the Liberal Democrats. Today the Liberal Democrats have talked a lot about accountability to Parliament. However, they believe in a massive extension of qualified majority voting—so that a Minister will have a clear responsibility to the House, will have a clear position on which he should be negotiating in Europe, and will have lost the power to deliver the policy for which he was responsible to the House. That is the biggest single threat to ministerial accountability.
The Liberal Democrats also referred to quangos—in fact, they proposed 892 new quangos: new Ministries, new levels of regional government, an industrial partnership agency, a judicial services commission, a national statistical commission, an animal protection commission, a fruit commission, a drugs commission, a national qualification council, a general teaching council, a humanities research council—I could go on. The creation of 892 new quangos would completely undermine the ability of the House to hold Ministers to account for their policies. Therefore, it is clear that the House should reject the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats and instead support the amendment in the name of the Government.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 247.

Division No. 49]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Barnes, Harry

Lynne, Ms Liz

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Maclennan, Robert

Bennett, Andrew F

Maddock, Diana

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Mahon, Alice

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Canavan, Dennis

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Chidgey, David

Rendel, David

Clapham, Michael

Salmond, Alex

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Skinner, Dennis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Spearing, Nigel

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Tyler, Paul

Faulds, Andrew

Wallace, James

Godman, Dr Norman A

Wareing, Robert N

Harvey, Nick

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Johnston, Sir Russell

Mr Archy Kirkwood and

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Mr Don Foster.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Alexander, Richard

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Amess, David

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Baldry, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Bates, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bellingham, Henry

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bendall, Vivian

706

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gorst, Sir John

Body, Sir Richard

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Booth, Hartley

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Boswell, Tim

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bowis, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Brandreth, Gyles

Hannam, Sir John

Brazier, Julian

Hargreaves, Andrew

Bright, Sir Graham

Harris, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hawksley, Warren

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hayes, Jerry

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Heald, Oliver

Budgen, Nicholas

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Burt, Alistair

Hendry, Charles

Butler, Peter

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Carrington, Matthew

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cash, William

Horam, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clappison. James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Coe, Sebastian

Jack, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Congdon, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Jessel, Toby

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Couchman, James

Key, Robert

Cran, James

King, Rt Hon Tom

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Knapman, Roger

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Day, Stephen

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Devlin, Tim

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dover, Den

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Duncan, Alan

Legg, Barry

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Leigh, Edward

Dunn, Bob

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lidington, David

Dykes, Hugh

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Elletson, Harold

Lord, Michael

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Luff, Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

MacKay, Andrew

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Faber, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fabricant, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Malone, Gerald

Fishburn, Dudley

Mans, Keith

Forman, Nigel

Marland, Paul

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Marlow, Tony

Forth, Eric

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

French, Douglas

Merchant, Piers

Gale, Roger

Mills, Iain

Gardiner, Sir George

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Garnier, Edward

Moate, Sir Roger

Gill, Christopher

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Gillan, Cheryl

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Nelson, Anthony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Neubert, Sir Michael

707

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stern, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sweeney, Walter

Norris, Steve

Sykes, John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Page, Richard

Temple-Morris, Peter

Paice, James

Thomason, Roy

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Pawsey, James

Thurnham, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Rathbone, Tim

Tredinnick, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Trend, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Trotter, Neville

Richards, Rod

Twinn, Dr Ian

Riddick, Graham

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Viggers, Peter

Robathan, Andrew

Walden, George

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Waller, Gary

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Waterson Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Watts, John

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Whitney, Ray

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Whittingdale, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Widdecombe, Ann

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Shersby, Sir Michael

Wilkinson, John

Sims, Roger

Willetts, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wilshire, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Wood, Timothy

Spink, Dr Robert

Yeo, Tim

Spring, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Tellers for the Noes:

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mr. Derek Conway and

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's policies for discharging Ministerial accountability to Parliament, for improving the management and delivery of public services, for maintaining high standards in public bodies, and for improving the openness and responsiveness of the public sector, thus creating a framework for good Government.

Local Government Services
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.13 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
That this House calls for reform of the financing of local councils so that they can realistically meet needs within the communities they serve; condemns the Government's financial priorities which are leading directly to the imposition of higher council taxes and cuts in local services; and believes that the Government's assault on local authorities, which continues year after year, is directly related to the massive reduction in Conservative representation at a local level.
I wish to make it clear at the start that I hope that the debate will not descend into the trading of insults about whose councils are worse than others. Many debates on local government in the House have been degraded in that way, and I hope that it will not happen tonight. If we chose, Liberal Democrat Members might use our time to attack Westminster or Lambeth, just as Labour spokesmen might do nothing but attack Wandsworth, or perhaps Tower Hamlets as it was under the Liberal Democrat administration, while Conservative spokesmen might do nothing but discuss Cornwall or Walsall.
If we do that, however, we shall merely succeed in losing what little esteem Members of Parliament are left with in the eyes of the public. Nothing makes politicians lose the respect of the public so fast as Members of the House using valuable debating time merely to criticise one another's councils. The public believe that instead we should consider positive ways in which all local authorities might be helped to provide better services at a lower cost.
People may say—and many do—that local government is on the brink of crisis, but a crisis is usually short-lived, whereas, sadly, the problems of local government are of long standing. Local government now faces a challenge from central Government that is perhaps greater than at any time in history. For the past 15 years, local government has been attacked by a Conservative Government who are keen to centralise as much power as they can. Even before that, there was always an imbalance in the relationship between local and central Government.
For too long, local government has been regarded as the property of central Government, its powers and responsibilities relating not to the public, but to Ministers and bureaucrats in Whitehall. Under the past three Conservative Administrations, local authorities have been regarded as the localised implementers of the philosophy and politics of the new right Conservative Government in Whitehall.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be constructive and not use the debate merely as an opportunity to knock the Government.
Mr. Rendel: I am happy to be constructive, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he will be patient. I said that it was important to use the debate to consider the whole of local government, not just to criticise individual councils.
For far too long, local government has been the property of central Government. We must change all that. From May 1996, the Conservatives will be left in control

709
of no more than a small handful of local authorities. As their losses in local government have increased, so their determination to control local government from their Whitehall bastion has also increased. Every year, our local authorities find it harder to cope with the financial burden placed on them by central Government. They do so under a dead weight of bureaucracy and over-regulation.
Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman talks about the powers and restrictions that central Government place on local authorities, and I believe that we can have a reasonable debate on that. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to the specific case of Taunton Deane borough council, held by the Liberals since 1991, which has never been capped. Two years ago, the council was awarded an extra grant of £1.3 million from central Government—the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), knows my opinion about that—which was far more than any other council in Somerset or Devon, and the grant has not been significantly reduced since. This year, the council proposes to increase its precept by 158 per cent., resulting in a
"huge increase in council tax",
as the Somerset County Gazette reports. What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?
Mr. Rendel: I have already made it plain that I hope that the debate will not be degraded by that type of intervention, and I shall not even honour the hon. Gentleman with an answer in that respect. I hope that no other hon. Member will seek to degrade the debate in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done.
Every year, our local authorities find it harder to cope. As the Conservatives have been driven from town halls throughout the country, the Government have wreaked their revenge. To ease the burden on central Government—largely to pay for reductions in income tax—the Government have increased the burdens placed on local authorities. At the same time as local authorities have had their resources pulled from under them by central Government, increasing statutory responsibilities are being passed on to them from central Government.
One need only think of the nightmare represented by care in the community or the endless red tape of compulsory competitive tendering. It is fair to sum up the problem which confronts local authorities of all political complexions as that of having a wide range of responsibilities dictated by central Government, without the resources needed to meet them or the freedom to secure those resources.
Let us consider some recent financial settlements. Last year, the Government at least had the honesty to admit that the settlement was very tough. They could hardly do otherwise when their own press release confirmed that, bearing in mind the new burdens in respect of community care, the contribution from central Government had decreased in cash terms. It meant a cut in Government funds of well over 3 per cent.
This year, unfortunately, there has been rather less honesty from Ministers. In November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged that an additional £878 million would be made available for investment in education for
710
1996–97. Of that, £770 million was to be channelled through local government. As I asked in the debate on the local government settlement, where is the extra £770 million? Funding from central Government for local authorities has not risen in real terms.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party's alternative Budget at the end of last year showed no extra money for local councils? Does that mean that the extra money that Liberals wanted for education—equivalent to 1p on income tax—would not be spent under their plans, or does it mean that new taxes would be imposed? Or does it mean that money would be taken from some local councils and given to others?
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his description of our alternative Budget. It is clear that the extra money from income tax would be spent on education. That is a local authority service. That money would have gone to local authorities for that reason.
This year, the Government have increased the standard spending assessment for education by only 4.5 per cent. Yet local authorities are already spending more this year on education than the Government suggest they should spend next year. If local authorities are to fulfil the Government's pledge of an increase in spending on education of 4.5 per cent., the reality is that the Government are, in effect, pressing local authorities to increase council tax by an average of 8 or 9 per cent., and to cut other services to the bone.
Even then it will not be possible for many authorities to boost spending on education by the amount that the Government suggest. I remind the House of the report produced by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which was published on 15 January. One section read:
"This increase in spending does not, however, have quite the substance that the Chancellor claimed for it. There seems little doubt that some local authorities will be unable to pass on any increase in spending, and that some schools may neither perceive nor receive any increase in resources."
In Cambridgeshire, for example, the education SSA for the current year was £226.1 million. Next year, it is due to rise to £237.3 million, an increase of 4.9 per cent.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) was told off for using a specific case—presumably one which did not suit the Liberal party's purposes—but we are now being treated to a specific case from the hon. Gentleman. What are the Liberals up to? Do they understand the case that they are putting, or are they merely making it up on the hoof as they go along?
Mr. Rendel: The interventions are becoming more and more futile. I referred to the need not to make foolish interventions merely to describe where certain councils had gone wrong in order to make cheap party political points. I am talking about the way in which the Government's financing of local government has affected certain councils. That is a very different matter.
Cambridgeshire has already decided to spend £241.1 million on education this year because the authority places a greater value on education than do the Government.

711
That pattern is repeated in a range of county councils from Northumberland to Cornwall. Indeed, it covers the length and breadth of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will no doubt confirm when he replies to the debate, exactly the same pattern is repeated in Scotland and Wales.
The Conservative party controls only a tiny handful of education authorities. No doubt that is why the counties place a greater emphasis on education.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rendel: No. I have already given way enough.
The Government's position no doubt helps to explain why they treat counties and local education authorities in general with such contempt. Even in Buckinghamshire—the last county left in Conservative hands—the council has made it clear that the settlement for 1996–97 is a disaster. It has calculated that it will need to make budget cuts of £12 million to contain expenditure within the capping limit. Yet that limit already assumes an increase in council tax of almost 7 per cent. Any additional Government funding for education will clearly be too little, too late.
In keeping with this evening's theme, what new money there may be will not cover rising costs that are beyond local authority control, such as the £191 million needed for rising pupil numbers or the £131 million required for special needs education. Nor does it take into account the 8 per cent. reduction in schools' capital grants and credit approvals. Vital repairs and maintenance for schools can be delayed for only so long: there comes a time when investment must be made in the infrastructure of our education system.
How can children be expected to learn in damp, decaying classrooms? How can teachers be expected to teach in Dickensian conditions where school buildings are a threat to health and where books are outdated and bedraggled? Conservative Ministers have raised the hopes of parents throughout the country, who thought that at last their children would receive the quality of education that they need, but it is clear already that those hopes were falsely raised.
The Government are guilty of deliberately misleading the public. Their strategy is obvious. They promise new money that will go through to local authorities. When that money does not materialise in schools, Ministers and Conservative Back-Bench Members berate local authorities for not passing it on. How callous can the Government be in toying with parents' concerns for their children's future in that way? How low can their regard for local government be when they seek deliberately to discredit local authorities throughout the country with a campaign that is based on deceit and misinformation?
We are not here merely to talk about what is wrong with local government funding. We must talk also about what we can do to improve it. The solution to the problem of local government funding lies in a change in approach by central Government. The Government must decentralise power. They must allow local authorities to have freedom properly to manage their own affairs. That means giving local authorities greater freedom in raising revenue and in setting spending priorities. It means also raising a larger proportion of funding locally.
712
At the most recent Conservative party conference, it was decided to end capping. The Conservatives were right to do so. Unfortunately, the Government are now so deaf to good advice that they do not listen to it even when it comes from their supporters. Capping is an unacceptable infringement of the principle of local decision making and local accountability. In addition, the constraints introduced by council tax precepts have had the unfortunate effect of pushing up local authority charges. When leisure facilities and the cost of meals on wheels soar above the rate of inflation, it is obvious who suffers the additional burdens. We know that they are faced by those who can least afford them.
In Northumberland, for example, the exceptionally tight budget will mean that the school uniform allowance will be halved. Voluntary groups will be charged to use school premises when they have never had to face such charges before. Discretionary transport provision will come to an end. A further 120 families in the county will be hit by the introduction of charges for respite care. There will be substantial increases in the cost of home help.
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I am anxious to have a clear idea of what the hon. Gentleman's party is proposing. When he says that capping must come to an end, is he proposing not to apply capping, or to repeal the legislation that makes it possible for the Government to cap? There is a great difference between the two.
Mr. Rendel: In a few moments, I shall be introducing a completely different system, which will not require the Minister's question to be answered.
Releasing capping in isolation presents its own problems, especially if accompanied by a stingy financial settlement which leaves authorities with no choice but substantially to increase council tax. The problem is that council tax was not designed to bear the weight of being a major source of local tax revenue. It is not suitable for that purpose, because it is simply not fair. It is unfair essentially because it has many of the elements of a simple charge rather than being a really progressive tax. There will be great resistance this year to the Government's proposed council tax increases. Whether they like it or not, Labour and Conservative Members alike will have to address that issue.
If local authorities are to raise a larger proportion of their own revenue and if the council tax is inherently unfair, what is the alternative? The Minister will be glad to hear that I am coming to that. The Liberal Democrats have had a policy on that for many years. We have argued consistently that the right way to raise local taxation is not by taxing personal property but by taxing personal income. It is one of the most basic principles of the modern liberal state that people contribute taxes according to their ability to pay. Our support for a local income tax is not new, nor is the idea confined to our party.
The Layfield report in 1976 took the view that a local income tax is the only form of taxation that warrants serious investigation for the raising of substantial extra council revenue. Furthermore, in a comprehensive new report for the Rowntree Foundation, Sir Charles Carter is due to show his support for a local income tax. I cannot see why the other parties are so resistant to this idea. I hope that it is not simply because they did not think of it

713
first and therefore will not endorse it. Whatever the reason, I suggest that there is now a new impetus for local income tax and that they can no longer avoid giving it serious consideration.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the Deputy Prime Minister was charged with getting the Government out of the mess of the poll tax, he admitted that local income tax was a viable alternative but that he was not prepared to support it because it was Liberal Democrat policy?
Mr. Rendel: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
Mr. Robert Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rendel: No, I have given way to many Conservative Members.
Other changes to local authority funding are required and some of them can be introduced fairly quickly and easily. It is imperative that central Government release local government capital receipts, which are estimated to be about £5 billion. Those funds should be invested in Britain's infrastructure, and not left languishing in accounts at the behest of Whitehall. That investment is desperately needed. With so many people suffering the indignity of homelessness, how can the Government stand by their line that the money must stay where it is in the banks? When will they learn that homelessness will not be solved by market forces alone?
The area cost adjustment still needs reform and the formulae used to allocate funding according to need have had their shortcomings embarrassingly exposed. One small but important example of that was passed to me recently by the London borough of Kingston. According to central Government estimates that were used to calculate Kingston's grant, Kingston has 224 children in care. In reality, it has 616 children for whom it is statutorily responsible. Making these changes to the funding system will no doubt sharpen the accountability of local government. Local authorities must have the flexibility to respond to local need.
Of course, with the enhanced revenue raising powers goes greater and more transparent responsibility. As a Liberal Democrat, I naturally favour improving the democratic process to match the improvements made to the funding system. There would be no need for capping in any of its forms if people could be made properly accountable through a democratic system of local government.
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman proposes two substantial increases in public expenditure. He proposes a substantial increase in revenue-raising powers. He has said that local income tax would substantially increase the revenue available to local government and that he would remove capping. That would lead to an increase in public expenditure and, as he knows, if substantial capital receipts are released, that would also increase public expenditure. [Interruption.] I
714
am surprised that I am being barracked. I assumed that we were getting a clear statement of Liberal Democrat policy and I thought that I was following it.
Does the hon. Gentleman's call for increased public expenditure in two areas mean that there would be an overall increase in public expenditure by the Exchequer? If that is not the case, where would the savings come from?
Mr. Rendel: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood the local income tax system that we would introduce. Perhaps that is why he does not favour it. Under the system, as local income tax increases and more and more funding is raised by local authorities, an equivalent decrease will occur in national income tax, which means that income tax as a whole will not increase. However, there will be an increase in local fund raising compared with national fund raising.
I realise that some hon. Members may not share the Liberal Democrat enthusiasm for representative voting. I warn hon. Members that, if local authorities are to have greater freedom to respond to local need, we must accept that the political process must be effective enough to ensure that they do so respond. I commend that point to Labour Members as well as to Conservative Members. This year's financial settlement was a disgrace in its deceitful conception, and it needs to be condemned by the House, but it was the direct product of a funding system which sees local government merely as the whipping boy of Whitehall. That relationship needs to be broken.
We must move from local government to local democracy. That requires Westminster-based politicians to let go of some of the reins of power and to trust the public to set their own priorities and govern their own communities. That may not be easy for the Conservatives, who have lost nearly all their influence in local communities, and it may also not be easy for the Labour party, which becomes more centralist the higher its opinion poll ratings go, but it is essential if we are collectively to win back the trust of the public of large. There is no better way for the House to prove that it is packed with public servants who have the interests of others at heart.
Education, transport, care in the community, and the environment—many of the most important aspects of our society—are dealt with by local government. If those services are to be run successfully, a proper system of funding local government is not just an option but a necessity. All those who care about local government recognise that, and I hope that all hon. Members will recognise it in the vote tonight.
7.36 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"congratulates the Government on the priority they have given to education and the police in the 1996–97 settlement for local government; approves the rigorous approach that Government takes towards all public expenditure, including that of local government; commends the flexibility they have given to local authorities to respond to local priorities; and urges local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available and to use their freedom responsibly in providing local services.".

715
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) asked for a debate on principles rather than on the performance of individual councils. I am happy to oblige him. This is an important issue, and I shall seek to demonstrate that the Conservative approach to local government in no way resembles the hon. Gentleman's epigrammatic description. It is part of a much more constructive approach and has a clear vision of the job that local government is there to do. That job must always move with the times, must be developing and must be organic, because circumstances change.
I should like to set out three propositions. First, Governments must have a view of the total volume of public expenditure that is acceptable in the economy. I cannot think of a Government who would not be willing to accept that starting proposition. The second proposition is that as local government spends about 25 per cent. of total public expenditure, Governments need to take a view about what is a desirable level of local authority spending. However attractive it might be to those in the town hall or to whoever occupies the Opposition Benches at any moment to ignore that, it is inescapable that Government have to come to that view.
I noted with interest an interview with the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) in the "Parliamentary Monitor", a journal that I noticed only because one of its representatives came to interview me today. The headline over this little chunk is "Reserving the right to cap". I shall quote the hon. Lady faithfully. She said:
"We have found that too many Labour councils are fed up with being labelled by the extreme activities of two or three councils. We have said therefore that we will reserve capping powers to make sure that no council thinks it can act above and beyond the needs of the country."
I commend the hon. Lady for that because it is common sense. Governments must take that view. At some stage, they may have to say, "The national interest has determined that we must limit the total volume of expenditure, and local government must be a part of that constrict."
Mr. Robert Maclennan: How long is the Minister's memory of history? When was capping introduced for the first time? He speaks as though it is like the laws of the Medes and the Persians and is utterly unalterable.
Mr. Curry: My memory does not necessarily extend to the Medes and the Persians, although I am currently reading John Julian Norwich's excellent book on the history of the Byzantine empire. I have noted that capping took place rather frequently under those regimes, although perhaps with rather more dire consequences than those which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
The third proposition is that Governments must set priorities in public expenditure, and that spending by local authorities and through local authorities is necessarily in competition with other public spending. That is the reality of the situation, whether in relation to health, community care, foreign aid, social services or the police service. In the modern state, those three propositions are inescapable. According to the Liberal Democrats, it appears that none of those choices must be made. That is what separates us, right at the beginning.
716
If the money available to local authorities is inadequate, it can come from only two places: in the form of more grant from central Government, or from the local taxpayer. Ultimately, the money will come from the taxpayer; it must come from the taxpayer wherever it comes from. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has more sense than most people in his party, because he has acknowledged that simple truth.
There are three components to local government—[Interruption.] I am trying to oblige the hon. Member for Newbury by focusing the debate on the central issues, rather than doing a Cook's tour of the local authorities.
Mr. Toby Jessel: In relation to the central issue, to which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred, did my hon. Friend notice that he suggested not only no capping of local authority taxes, but that there should be a locally imposed income tax? The hon. Gentleman did not mention his party's policy to restore the Greater London council and other regional councils, which presumably would, if they had their way, have the power to impose a local income tax without any parliamentary or central Government capping. That would be a double whammy. How on earth does the hon. Gentleman imagine that people with families to support, and young executive and professional people in places such as Twickenham and Richmond, will possibly manage if two lots of income tax were imposed without any kind of capping?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a very long intervention.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. One thing I noticed in the remarks by the hon. Member for Newbury—because it was not there—was a definition of what is local. At what level will the tax be raised? Will it be raised by one of the new, super-duper regional assemblies which the Liberal party would impose on us? Another thing I noticed was the hon. Gentleman's statement that it would all net out to be the same because, if one raises more tax locally, one could raise less tax centrally. I can only say: would that that would happen. All my experience tells me that I can believe it when I see it. As I do not expect to see it, I see no need to suspend my disbelief.
Local authority finance has three basic components: the revenue support grant, the redistributed business rate and council tax. There are various grants and other finance, but the current expenditure of local government essentially comes from those three sources. What are the options for changing that? Let us examine the options, both within the structure and outside it.
The hon. Member for Newbury, and the hon. Member for North-West Durham, too, espouse the idea of the locally raised and retained business rate. Perhaps they forget—I may speak about the hon. Gentleman's memory—that local business rates were completely discredited by the time we scrapped them, that rate poundages varied enormously from place to place and from year to year, that business had no idea what bills it would be called on to pay in the next year or subsequently, that the less responsible councils viewed local commerce and industry largely as a convenient milch cow, and that relations were often very poor.

717
Hugely complicated grant arrangements were needed to compensate for the very uneven distribution of rateable resources across the country. Is it therefore necessary or helpful to introduce that change in those circumstances?
Another option for changing local authority finance, as the hon. Member for Newbury suggested, is to get rid of capping. He said that the argument over whether we must get rid of it in statute or merely not apply it is irrelevant, because they will do something else in any case. That was the heart of his argument. I acknowledge that there are two points of view on that argument. Considered from the local authorities' point of view, I can quite understand people there who say, "We would like to get rid of capping. We want to be able to take the decisions".
That is a natural and understandable reaction. However, there is the wider view, which has caused the hon. Member for North-West Durham, who has left the Chamber to find some crucial piece of evidence—for reasons which I completely understand—[Laughter.] I must defend the hon. Lady. She has left for a reason with which I sympathise entirely, which has nothing to do with this debate. In her circumstances, I should have done the same thing. I shall explain to Liberal Members what those entirely honourable reasons are, should they be overwhelmed with curiosity on this matter.
There is a wider, national view—which has led the hon. Member for North-West Durham to retain in her proposals the power to cap, even if she would not wish to use it on every occasion—in relation to what can be afforded. That point of view is just as legitimate. We have, if one likes, two legitimacies that are in conflict. I accept that there is bound to be a conflict, depending on one's perspective. In government, one must take the wider view, which has consequences for what one is willing to permit local government to spend. This year, there has been more generous capping criteria to allow education funding to pass through to schools—I shall come to the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury in relation to that in a moment—if that is the decision of the local authority.
One can equally amend the revenue support grant formula and its principles. It is an organic system that must be upgraded and brought up to date—for example, by new census data. From time to time, it is reasonable to test parts of the system to discover whether it is resilient, robust and providing the best possible answers. I do not defend the system as some sort of crystal structure, every aspect of which must be defended. However, it is a well worked out and sophisticated system, and we must strike a balance between what is understandable and what is comprehensive so that it is accessible.
We share with local authorities and take part in those discussions. I think no one accuses us of not wanting to maintain the genuine debate on the mechanisms for distribution of the grant. That is why this year—which is of great interest to many hon. Members—the examination of area cost adjustment and the sparsity factor of the children's element in the personal social services will have a crucial impact on the way in which the grant is distributed. However, we cannot satisfy everyone.
When people come to talk to me and my hon. Friends about those matters, I notice that the system which they regard as the most objective that could be devised almost
718
invariably coincides with a system that would redirect the most resources towards that local authority. I do not blame local authorities for that because it is natural. However, we can never satisfy everyone because there are bound to be natural conflicts, and a balance must be struck between them.
The hon. Member for Newbury said that he would get rid of the council tax. I pose the question whether, with the turbulence that I accept local government has been through, now is the time to tear up by the root a taxation system that has been there effectively for only a couple of years and to start all over again.
Mr. Rendel: Is not that precisely what the Government did with the poll tax, which was quickly thrown out?
Mr. Curry: That is precisely what we did, because the community charge did not deliver what we demanded of it. The council tax, on the other hand, is delivering a very high rate of collection—much higher than any previous system. The system is accessible and readily understandable. It is easily perceptible. It conforms with Adam Smith's definition of a good tax. The council tax works effectively and it is a stable tax. Therefore, in those circumstances, would it be sensible to start again and tear up the existing structure that is settling down well?
I said earlier that I would not cite local authorities simply to denigrate them. However, I shall this once cite an authority, but with a hint of praise. Lambeth is now beginning to collect a far higher proportion of the council tax that it should be collecting than it ever has before. Collection is a crucial element in local government finance. Councils need to collect as much tax as is legitimately due to them—just as they should fill voids and collect local authority rents. All that is part of the essential management tool of delivering efficient local government.
Mr. Key: I want to underline and endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said about the reform of local government taxation. I was previously a local government finance Minister, and I can only say that what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said is absolute nonsense. My right hon. Friend who is now the Deputy Prime Minister looked at the whole question of local income tax in great detail. It is not true to say that we did not look at that, together with every other system.
One of the disadvantages of local income tax is that economically poor areas would have a very low tax base, while all the rich areas that currently seem to return Liberal Democrat authorities would have massive, overflowing coffers. That would necessitate very substantial transfers from one to the other, and we would not end up with a better system.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These interventions are too long.
Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who speaks from experience.
I come now to more fundamental changes. The Liberal Democrats are still, I think, saying that they would raise an additional 1 p on national income tax and direct it specifically to education. However, there is only one way

719
that that could happen under the present structure—it would have to be wrapped up into a specific grant and its use limited to the education sector. If the hon. Member for Newbury did that, he would hypothecate it—yet the whole tenor of his remarks was that he wanted to give more freedom to local authorities.
If he delivers that 1 p to local authorities through the standard spending assessment system, he cannot hypothecate it, and therefore cannot guarantee that it would go to education. Any council—whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative—that wished to spend that money on building roads, or building pyramids for that matter, would be legally entitled to do so, even if it would not be wise. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee that that money would go to education unless he is prepared to eat his own words and deny local authority competence and decision making.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In a sense, the Minister is correct—but is he not showing the dishonesty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who claimed in his Budget that he was giving £878 million extra to education? He cannot deliver, either.
Mr. Curry: There is no contradiction—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) should listen. There is no contradiction either in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said or in what the hon. Member for Newbury said. My right hon. and learned Friend may find £700-odd million for education, just as the hon. Gentleman may find the product of a 1p income tax for education—and earnestly wish that money to go through to education, adjusting the capping criteria to try to ensure that it does. What my right hon. and learned Friend, the hon. Gentleman and I cannot do is to require in any statutory or legal sense that that money should go to education.
Mr. King: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is completely wrong. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made it clear that he could not compel that money to go to education, but said that he looked to local authorities to ensure that it did. Liberal Democrat Somerset, having made the biggest complaint about education and having said that its top priority is education, did not put the money into education when it had the funds to do so, but put it into other services instead.
Mr. Curry: I have never made the claim that that money must, in some quasi-statutory sense, go through to education. Last year there was a major campaign—in some cases orchestrated by local authorities—protesting against the settlement and focusing on education. Therefore, it would be extraordinary if those local authorities, having been given the extra resources, did not spend them on education—the very thing that they highlighted as the chief priority.
My first objection to a local income tax is that it would be wrong to get rid of the council tax. It is working, it is effective and I know of no one in local government who wishes to pull it up by the roots and start again. Secondly, local income tax means differential rates of tax. There would be a real threat to some of the inner-city areas and attempts to regenerate life there. It would also be a
720
difficult match with the benefits system. I do not buy the idea of local income tax. Council tax is doing the job better—
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Has my hon. Friend seen the internal research document "Towards 1996", produced by the Liberal Democrats? [Interruption.] Perhaps "Towards Oblivion" would be a more apt title. The document states:
"Under the Lib-Dems local income tax you would pay income tax twice."
Mr. Curry: Knowing that the hon. Member for Newbury wished to conduct this debate in a high-minded manner, I wrestled with my conscience over whether I should use that excellent Liberal Democrat document, which I understand was drawn up by someone described as a political warfare officer. I decided not to use it. I can only deprecate my hon. Friend's decision to introduce that sort of note into this debate.
I do not know what has happened to site value rating. When the hon. Member for Newbury was chided with having dropped it in the rate support grant last year, he wrote a letter to us protesting that it was still on the Liberal Democrat agenda. However, it has not appeared in today's discussion, so I do not know whether it is still there.
Let us be clear about the education settlement, against the background of statutory powers that I have described. In cash terms, comparing like with like and SSA with SSA, the figures are up—an increase of £74 million. Just under £200 million accounts for pupil numbers, while £322 million accounts for teachers' pay. The remainder covers other sources of inflation.
Ms Hilary Armstrong: Does the Minister agree that comparing, like with like—cash that was spent last year against cash that will be available this year—there is nothing like a 4.4 per cent. increase?
Mr. Curry: But that is not comparing like with like. Last year's outcome cannot be compared with the money that the Government are making available this year. That is comparing things that are not alike. Every year, local authorities spend more than their SSA and they will continue to do so. The capping criteria allow that additional money to come through. I use the word "money" advisedly because in education everybody talks about resources, as though that is something much grander than money. In fact, most of the time we are talking about money, and it is important to remember that.
Ms Armstrong: Will the Minister explain how much councils will have to spend above SSA this year to meet the education budget in real terms as opposed to last year, given the rise in pay, the rise in pupil numbers and other commitments? How much does he estimate council tax will have to rise to cover that?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady is asking the same question in a different way. The only thing that we can compare is what the Government make available to local authorities one year with what they make available the next year. If councils choose to spend other resources—for example, from reserves—that is entirely a matter for them
Ms Armstrong rose—
Mr. Curry: I am not giving way again; I have already given way to the hon. Lady twice.

721
There is a tendency to discuss education as if the only issue which matters is money, whereas many recent events have suggested that the method and quality of teaching also have a great deal to do with educational performance. We do ourselves a disservice if we discuss education purely in terms of money.
The hon. Member for Newbury talked about capital receipts, which I know are very beloved of the Opposition. The deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was—I think—on "Today" a week ago talking about capital receipts lying idle. They are not lying idle; it is the Opposition's great and frightfully convenient myth. Capital receipts are in fact used to finance local government activities. For example, the interest from them replaces borrowing. Such capital receipts are not where they are needed in many circumstances, so there would have to be clear compensation for the way in which capital is allocated.
The Opposition are clutching at a great straw in thinking that they would be able to be frightfully prudent about public expenditure and at the same time give local authorities so much extra money. They will find that the straw turns out to be rather feeble when they try to float on it.
In a debate that I have tried to keep free from indulgence in any unnecessary invective, I rather resented the hon. Member for Newbury saying that homelessness cannot be addressed purely by market forces. Nobody is trying to address homelessness by market forces. The rough sleepers initiative introduced by the Government—we are now considering a successor programme to it—is a very deliberate programme of co-operation with the voluntary sector, using public money specifically to help people, and has nothing whatever to do with market forces. It is entirely designed to find effective ways to help people who desperately need that help.
I do not care what sort of flags people want to fly on it. I am concerned simply with being able to meet the dramatic needs that we encounter. Indeed, voluntary organisations would also resent the implication that somehow they were lending themselves to some exercise in the application of market forces in areas that do not lend themselves to such application.
I remind the House of the state in which we found local government in 1979. Not universally, but in many cases, we found a monolithic local government, divorced from the private sector. It was not used to working with the private sector and there was barely any contact between public and private sectors. Local government was corporatist and dominated by the trade unions which worked for it. There was a closed shop; there was no competition for services or service delivery. In many respects it was wasteful, due to levels of unnecessary management.
We have sought to transform local government. We have introduced efficiency—yes, by public expenditure restraints. That is one of the classic means by which one introduces efficiency. I would not want to pretend that that has not happened. Local government has experienced what is known in jargon as delayering. It has seen more professional management, which—I think—has been accepted.
722
The establishment of partnership with the private sector, has been dramatic and effective. That partnership has occurred through such practices as compulsory competitive tendering, although many local authorities are still extremely resentful of that process. Partnership with the private sector has been especially noticeable in regeneration schemes such as city challenge and single regeneration budgets, where public resources have been used alongside private resources in order to get value for money as well as more money to get value out of. That has been crucial in bringing about what has often been a mind change in many local authorities, which now consider partnership instinctively instead of having to be—almost—dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept that the concept is valid.
We have seen a new culture of partnership, the development of value for money through the Audit Commission value-for-money studies, and performance indicators, which were intended as a tool for punishment and found to be useful by local authorities. Incidentally, such performance indicators have also given the electorate a great deal more power and information than ever before. Accountability must start with information. We have developed the enabling concept of local authorities that has been widely accepted in local government. Indeed, the most intelligent parts of local government have sought to develop it. That does not comprise a minimalist, static view of local government. It is positive, creative and dynamic.
Of course, we must continue to make efficiencies and implement vigorous cost control. We are approaching the end of the structural review, we have a settled tax in the form of council tax, a widely accepted concept of enabling, and a concept of partnership regarded as necessary and desirable.
Local government next needs to combine a period of stability with measured change and development. There are three essential roles for local government. First, it must play the necessary role of regulator on behalf of central Government and on its own behalf. Trading standards and environmental health officers are doing a necessary job as regulators. That role should have as light a touch and be as user-friendly as possible.
Secondly, local government plays the role of enabler in the way in which services are provided. Thirdly, it has the role of regenerator; the local authority at the heart of its community trying to bring about regeneration, renewal and economic development, which it should develop. We will be introducing a trial scheme—capital challenge—whereby local authorities compete for capital. That idea has a lot of sense to it. I would like local authorities, for example, to consider bidding for capital challenge money to extend and get better value for existing SRB or estate action schemes.
We are introducing the estates renewal programme to tackle some of the most difficult problems on the most deprived estates. Would it not make sense to make those bids alongside SRB bids and estate action programmes? That would also enable better and more extensive value for people. Thinking creatively in such terms is one of the essential functions of local government that I hope they will undertake.
There is a new culture, although one cannot be certain how long it will last and whether it is really imbedded. Some of the Opposition policies such as the end of

723
compulsory competitive tendering, the end of capping with the most meagre safeguards, wholesale changes in, for example, the financial basis of local government, and changes in business rates are what local government does not need.
Local government has found a new role; the Government have endowed it with a new role. I have enjoyed the warmest and most friendly relations with all people in local government, irrespective of political party. I could justify that and the people who come to see me would also argue that that is so. That is because I esteem what it does. Its role is essential. A new role for it, at the heart of its local community in partnership, is emerging and I hope to continue to promote it from the Government Benches.
8.6 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Minister was right about the Government's attitude to local government. There is no doubt that local government has been the whipping boy of the Conservative Government in the past 17 years. The Government have repeatedly attacked local government, constrained its powers and functions and struck at its financial basis. I shall not respond in too much detail to what the Minister said, because he was obviously dealing only with English local authorities. I await the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), to hear the Government's response to the debate from a Scottish perspective.
I heard the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) appeal for a high-minded approach to the debate and criticise deceit and misinformation. Deceit and misinformation immediately call to mind the most recent "Focus" leaflets in my area. I have never seen more consistent deceit and information than that in Liberal Democrats' focus leaflets. People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.
I want to address issues in my local area, which I am elected first and foremost to do. I am especially pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present. On behalf of the Government, he certainly has a lot to answer for. The Conservative base in Scottish local government has all but vanished. The Conservatives do not control a single new unitary council. Indeed, there has not been a Conservative councillor in the Cambuslang area of my constituency since 1982.
The Scottish revulsion for the Conservative Government, driven on by Thatcherism, led many middle-of-the-road, decent Conservative voters to start voting Liberal, and they have continued to do so. They would not go the whole way and vote Labour, but what will happen in the coming year when those Tory-Liberal voters find out that the leader of the Liberal party has declared that he will support not the Conservative party but a Labour Government? I do not know, but I shall await the outcome with interest. The Conservative base in Scotland has been destroyed despite the Government's attempts at gerrymandering through the unwanted and uncalled-for reorganisation of Scottish local government.
As a former Strathclyde regional councillor, I know that the council has done a first-class job. For the benefit of the Under-Secretary, who is a new boy in this regard, I should point out that Strathclyde regional council was
724
repeatedly praised by Conservative Secretaries of State for Scotland for its responsible attitude to the organisation of its services and the raising of money for those services.
The previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), denied that there would be any job losses because of the reorganisation of Scottish local government. He then said that there would be losses, but only at the edges, and that they would amount to about 1,000, if that. On Friday, I attended a meeting at the city chambers in Glasgow, where I was shown figures that 8,000 jobs will be lost in Scottish local government, and the number is rising.
My constituency is divided between two local authorities: South Lanarkshire, covering Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen, and the new Glasgow city council, covering Toryglen. South Lanarkshire new council is under pressure because the grant settlement from the Government completely ignores any pay awards for local authority staff, including teachers. If the Minister wishes to deny that, he is welcome to intervene. It means that any nationally agreed pay awards have to be met in full by each local authority from whatever resources it can find or, more likely, from the cuts imposed to finance them. It is a cumulative problem, because, according to the figures that I have, no allowance has been made in the grant for the past three years for pay awards.
One opinion put forward at the meeting in the city chambers in Glasgow was that English authorities had received allowances in their grants to deal with a 4.5 per cent. increase, yet there is no comparable increase for Scottish local authorities. I should like the Minister to respond to that point.
There is also pressure on local authority services because of additional works and costs undertaken by local authorities that are not reflected in the grant. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities produced an extensive list of works and costs that were ignored by the Government when they arrived at the grant settlement. One example is the landfill tax that local authorities will have to pay from October 1996, which the Scottish Office has completely ignored.
The Government have retained capping and, in some ways, reinforced the capping of local authority expenditure. In simple terms, in the coming financial year, if a local authority can increase expenditure by only 1 per cent. on that for 1995–96 before being capped, extensive cuts are inevitable. Local authorities in Scotland are being forced to cut services to reach the Government capping limit and thereby avoid action by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Local authorities, including South Lanarkshire, are, in effect, experiencing another round of cuts, and face service reductions as a result of vacancies not being filled. They also face extra charges on the community, redundancies and the closure of facilities. At the end of the exercise, they are still looking for significant increases in council tax because of the relatively small increase in grant.
South Lanarkshire is a new council for Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen. Twenty years ago, we were incorporated into Glasgow district council, which, in the eyes of many folk, was not a success. We are now part of South Lanarkshire. Despite that council's difficulties, it has recognised the special needs of Cambuslang,

725
Halfway and Rutherglen through special measures in the forthcoming year. With great difficulty, it has managed to keep the increase in council rents down to about £2 a week, which, although still high for council tenants, is comparatively low—life is all about comparisons, and the increase is certainly less than the going rate of council increases in Scotland.
In addition, councillors in the rest of South Lanarkshire have taken the wider view and allowed extra capital spending on the housing programme in the Cambuslang and Rutherglen area. That displays a degree of tolerance and good will towards our area that we very much appreciate.
In many ways, all councils in Scotland are in trouble but the figures that I received on Friday for the new Glasgow city council are frightening. Conservatives and others will say that Labour is always crying disaster, that it is merely going through the motions and that, after we have had a little panic and cried wolf, things will settle down and everything will be fine. Only in the longer term will we be able to establish whether there is any credibility in that view.
It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that it costs the new Glasgow city council £874 million to provide its current services. That is what it cost last year, with no expansion of the council budget. For the coming year, grant-aided expenditure results in only £807 million being available. Glasgow city council therefore faces a £67 million shortfall. Surely that must be recognised as a special case.
I am not arguing that the cake should be redistributed in Glasgow's favour but, as someone whose constituency covers two different councils under the new system, I am already on record as saying, and have no hesitation in repeating, that whichever council covers the city of Glasgow will need special help. There is possibly more need in that area than anywhere else in Scotland. With the disaggregation of Strathclyde regional council services, Glasgow city council faces a desperate situation. A deficit of £67 million is equivalent to a cut of almost 8 per cent. in its budget. Various measures have been suggested that would reduce the amount required, through departmental cuts, to £45 million or just 5 per cent., but such cuts are draconian.
Examples of the measures that Glasgow council needs to take include increasing charges for school meals and milk, home helps, recreational facilities, burials and cremations, community education and letting fees. In addition, charges would need to be extended to a wider range of home care and social services, and charges would be introduced for under-five nursery provision and for entry into museums.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems that he is outlining are exacerbated by the fact that the new councils have literally no experience of, for example, social work policies, procedures and practice? The same is true of education, so the new authorities face a difficult future.
Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which reinforces a point that I intended to make later. There will be a learning curve for the new
726
Glasgow city council, which is to be a unitary authority. The Government expect the council to acquire the necessary expertise and knowledge without providing the expenses for training. The training needed to ensure that services are kept to the present high standard will be expensive for the council, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing that.
The closures of services to which I have referred are not in my imagination, as there is a £67 million shortfall to be met. The options for the council include closing primary and secondary schools, but Strathclyde has tried hard to deal with the problem of surplus school places. The council is considering closing community education facilities and residential schools. These include, for instance, the Carnbooth school, the only school in the area that caters for deaf and blind children. Councillors were so desperate at one stage that they even considered closing that school, although I now believe that they have decided to look at other measures. That is the sort of desperate attitude that the Government have forced on councillors who are trying to balance the budget.
Other facilities considered for closure included elderly people's homes, local authority day centres and hostels, libraries, museums, public halls and the district court. Only last week, the Secretary of State criticised Glasgow district council following the cancellation of a whole day's court cases at the district court, which resulted in many cases not being fully processed. The Government are forcing such situations on councils, and are then criticising them. Despite all these potential cuts, a massive increase in council tax faces Glasgow residents if no help comes from the Government.
On social work, Glasgow district council benefited from the fact that Strathclyde regional council was able to draw resources from a wider area to spend on areas of need—many of which, unfortunately, were in Glasgow. That meant that a disproportionate share of Strathclyde's budget was spent in the city of Glasgow—rightly, as that was where the need was. Strathclyde spent 40 per cent. of its social work budget in the Glasgow area because of the level of need, but only about 30 per cent. will come to Glasgow in grand-aided expenditure. More account should have been taken of the fact that the disaggregation of staff will leave Glasgow in a terrible position.
I maintain that Glasgow needs special help, as the position that it faces is far more critical than anyone could have foreseen. All the factors that I mentioned relating to the local government reorganisation of Strathclyde and the disaggregation show the pressure that is on Glasgow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): The hon. Gentleman has argued strongly for extra money for Glasgow, and has talked about not wanting a redistribution—a matter that I may return to when I respond to the debate. As he is reaching the end of his speech, may I ask him where he expects to get the extra funding? Will he follow his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who, in a slip on BBC television, indicated that he would take it from the health budget?
Mr. McAvoy: I would recommend that we do not follow the example of the former Secretary of State for Scotland—the current President of the Board of Trade—who wasted £30 million of taxpayers' money on a private

727
hospital. I ask the Minister—who may not have experience of the matter—to check the figures that show how much money was wasted in Scotland, never mind the United Kingdom, on the poll tax debacle. The Minister should not preach to us when there are examples of disgraceful waste in his own backyard.
Mr. Kynoch: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman answered the question. He has given an example of a one-off cost, when what he is referring to is an on-going situation. How would he fund it year on year? Would the money come from health, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East said?
Mr. McAvoy: We will make sure that there are no more of these "one-off costs", as the Minister calls them. I can tell him that £30 million would keep Glasgow and Scottish local government going for a wee while.
8.24 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I shall make a short speech, to allow other hon. Members to speak.
I was amazed by the introductory speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who pleaded with us not to pick on any Liberal Democrat councils and use them as examples of authorities in which there is either flagrant waste or services are not up to scratch. He went on to criticise Government expenditure and Government policy and tried to use the debate simply as a political ploy. I do not accept that. I have a list of Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities and, if the hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall start to read them out and describe some of the problems suffered by local people in those areas.
The hon. Gentleman said that we need better services at a lower cost. There was nothing in what he went on to say that led me to believe that his party's proposals would provide better services, and certainly not at a lower cost. The hon. Gentleman, who obviously lives in a Liberal Democrat dreamland, added that we need extra expenditure on a number of services, but gave the impression that nobody would have to pay for that extra expenditure. That is absolute and complete tosh. If there is to be extra expenditure on education, social services or any of the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, somebody somewhere must pick up the tab. He was dishonest, in that he was not prepared to say how much that tab would be and who would have to pick it up.
I am fortunate that I live in Ribble Valley, one of the most beautiful areas in the United Kingdom. I am also fortunate, in that Ribble Valley is a Conservative-controlled local authority. Our only problem is that we have the vast-spending Lancashire county council above us, and we must pay the brunt of our local authority council tax to that county council. I have no doubt that more will be said about that in the House on Wednesday morning.
The Liberal Democrats demand extra expenditure nationally, with the party's alternative Budget last year stating that its expenditure plans amounted to about £10 billion. That expenditure will have to be found through higher income tax. I know that the Liberal Democrats have grandiose plans, and that they want to
728
introduce punitive rates of tax for those earning more than £100,000. Those rates of tax, however, will find their way down to those earning less than that amount.
We also have the delights of the local income tax to look forward to. I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's comment that the Liberal Democrats would be raising a lot from the local income tax, so that tax would come down nationally as one tax balanced with the other. I assume that, under the party's proposals, the council tax will be abolished and that the Liberal Democrats will not run the council tax alongside the local income tax. Therefore, all that extra money will have to be found.
I live in an affluent area, and local people would have to pay the local income tax. Some of the money raised in my area would have to be siphoned off to pay for expenditure in some of the poorer areas of the north-west, where there are specific problems and where extra money is needed. The Government ensure through the current system that money reaches the areas that need it. One can only imagine what sort of system the hon. Gentleman has in mind following the introduction of a local income tax.
Some people would argue that one Chancellor of the Exchequer is bad enough. But can one imagine what it would be like if we had a local Chancellor of the Exchequer in every town hall throughout the country? He would have to respond to Liberal Democrat councillors, who would be dreaming up grandiose plans for where they wanted to see tax income spent. That local Chancellor would then raise tax locally. I assume that that system would be an absolute nightmare.
Not only would we have a local income tax and other grandiose plans, but the cap that currently protects people from these technicalities would be removed. Councils could then go on a massive spending spree without any intervention from central Government, who would tell them, "Hold on. Local people need protection from those spending plans." That system would be an absolute nightmare.
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to what I said about the need for greater accountability in local authorities. If local accountability is increased by means of a proper voting system, there will be no need for capping.
Mr. Evans: Good grief—are not talking about proportional representation, are we? That would enable councils to shunt off their spending responsibilities. No doubt they would try to make out that central Government were to blame—obviously, the Liberal Democrats would never be in control of central Government—while hiking up local spending. They would hide behind proportional representation, trying to gain power that was disproportionate to the votes that they were securing. It would be a nightmare.
On top of that, the Liberal Democrats would impose regional government, while signing away much of the power that we have at Westminster to Brussels. They are, of course, a federal party: they believe in a United States of Europe. That would be an absolute disaster. There would be tier upon tier of local government, hiding behind the word "democratic". The people would have to pick up the bill for all those tiers of bureaucracy, and there would be no improvement in services.

729
I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury did not mention businesses. For six years, I was a member of West Glamorgan county council. Before the introduction of the uniform business rate, local businesses used to trot along to the council year after year and beg it to take account of their spending plans so that the burden did not fall on them. They were trying to plan for the next 12 months without having the faintest idea how much they would have to find to pay their rates.
Many business people knew that the process was no more than a facade: they would make their pleas, and be ignored. It was like talking to a brick wall. Up would go the council and business rates—and it was particularly difficult for small businesses working on the margins to find the extra money from their profits or, if they were not making profits that year, from some other source.
The hon. Member for Newbury did not say what he would do to help small businesses. One thing that the Government have done is ensure that businesses can plan for the future: they know how much they will be charged. We must ensure that that system of rating is retained.
We know that the Liberal Democrats are big on bureaucracy. In Richmond, for instance, there are a good many extra committees: it seems to be thought that, just because meetings continue until 9 pm, 10 pm or 11 pm, people in the area are being given a better deal, but we are aware that that is not the case.
Mr. Chris Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman read the auditor's letter to Richmond council? Does he accept that what he has said is simply not true, and that the council was highly praised by the auditor?
Mr. Evans: I have also discovered that, according to the Audit Commission's January 1995 paper "Paying the Piper", £500 million of extra money could be found through savings if only best practice were followed.
Mr. Wilshire: Is my hon. Friend aware that Richmond council is pouring tens of thousands of pounds into opposing the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport, although all independent local surveys show that the majority of people support it?
Mr. Evans: I did not know that, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend has been able to share the news with the House and the nation.
The Liberal Democrats keep banging on about education. They tell the country that they will put a penny on income tax to pay for extra education services, but, as has been pointed out, they cannot guarantee that the money will be spent on education, just as we cannot guarantee that the extra £700 million or £800 million that is going to local authorities will be spent on it. On Wednesday morning I shall make an impassioned plea to Lancashire county council, asking it to follow the Chancellor's guidance, and I hope that as a result it will spend its budget on education.
The Liberal Democrats cannot even do their sums right. We need only add up all Littleborough and Saddleworth's education spending plans. Their education spokesman had to admit that the accumulated spending plans meant an increase of 2.5p, not 1p.
Mr. Chris Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell me where the local authority called Littleborough and Saddleworth is?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman represents the area.
Mr. Davies: There is no such local authority.
Mr. Evans: The Liberal Democrats' education spokesman visited the constituency during the by-election—I was there throughout—and had to admit that their expenditure plans amounted to 2.5p on income tax, rather than 1p. I am amazed that, given the opportunity to comment on that, the hon. Gentleman chose to make a pedantic point about the name of the constituency.
It is also a great shame that the Liberal Democrats confuse education spending with the delivery of the service. That does not add up either. We know that, in some parts of the United Kingdom where twice as much is spent on education as in other parts, the outturn is not as much as it is in those other areas. Money is not all that matters.
Since 1979, the amount spent on education has risen by more than 50 per cent. The Government are keeping their commitment, but we need to ensure that other provision remains, such as grant-maintained schooling. I understand that the Liberal Democrats, along with their friends in the Labour party, do not believe in that. My parents could not afford to send me to an independent school, but, thanks to the assisted places scheme, the parents of 60,000 young people will be able to ensure that their children enjoy the education that they consider best for them: the Government are providing the money to make the extra places available. The Liberal Democrats do not want that, however. The same applies to the national curriculum and to testing, which ensures that standards continue to rise.
We must keep an eye on how Liberal Democrats behave within their areas. They say one thing and do another. They say that they are looking after the people, that they want services to be financed properly and that the council tax should be kept as low as possible. A couple of weeks ago, the Clitheroe Advertiser and Times reported that the Liberal Democrat councillor on Ribble Valley council had suggested that we introduce car-parking charges in Clitheroe for the first time. Goodness knows at what level the charges would be introduced, but, according to the newspaper, the aim is to raise some £400,000.
I cannot think of such a devious way of introducing a new tax. Not only would local residents have to find the extra money to park their cars in Clitheroe; the charge would harm small businesses in Clitheroe. There are many small businesses in the area—not the major chain stores that operate in such villages, but smaller stores, mostly family-owned, working from early in the morning until late at night. Along with local Conservatives, I shall fight hard against the introduction of such charges.
The hon. Member for Newbury had a wonderful opportunity to say how the Liberal Democrats would improve local services with the money that was available. It is a great shame that he did not do so. There were several interventions on his speech, but he failed to give an honest answer. There is one thing that the Liberal

731
Democrats have in common with Labour nowadays: they simply do not answer the questions that they are asked, because they dare not do so.
8.38 pm
Ms Hilary Armstrong: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The problem is that he does not know his Government's policy. The car park charging policy comes from the Department of the Environment. It is part of the manner in which the Government expect local authorities—
Mr. Nigel Evans indicated dissent.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should learn about the policy.
Mr. Evans: I am not having that.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman may not be having it, but that is the guidance—the virtual instruction—from his Government. Perhaps he should talk to the Secretary of State.
Several Conservative Members misunderstood local government finance, either deliberately or because it is difficult to understand. I am reminded of the words of Lord Ferrers, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is responsible in the other place for local government. Last Thursday, in answering a question on the current revenue support grant settlement, he said:
"My Lords, it is a fact that some council taxes in London may rise. Given that the total standard support, commonly known as the TSS,"—
I do not think that that is what TSS is, but never mind—
"has increased by more than the AEF and that SSAs in inner London are falling due to changes in the ACA brought about by changes in the NES, with consequent reductions in RSG and NDR, it is not surprising that council taxes in London may rise."
In response to that, my noble Friend Lord Stallard said:
"My Lords, I nearly said that the Minister's replies so far were NBG."
Several hon. Members would concur. Lord Ferrers later said:
"My Lords, it is a complicated subject."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 330.]
I suspect that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is in much the same position as Lord Ferrers. He clearly does not understand that more than 80 per cent. of the money that local government is able to spend is from central coffers. Changing the balance between the amount of money spent and raised locally and the amount raised centrally is of critical importance to the balance between central and local government.
I argued in a similar debate less than two weeks ago that this has been the most centralising Government this century and that there is more power in Whitehall and No. 10 Downing street than ever before. Part of our argument is that we need to change the balance. Conservative Members and the Minister refuse to address that issue.
I agree with the Minister that the council tax works better than did its predecessor, the poll tax, on which billions of pounds were wasted, but it is also true that
732
there is now so much central Government control that the amount that local government can raise through council tax is very limited. The gearing effect caused by the amount spent by central Government is so huge in some areas that to raise spending even to present capping levels would be impractical. Local people could not afford that amount of money. The problem is that the Government have controlled local government spending to a degree that means that it is not possible for council tax to be used even in the way in which the Government initially intended it to be used.
Mr. Rendel: I appreciate the hon. Lady's attack on centralisation by the Conservative Government, but it is fair to bring to her attention a recent notice sent to every member of the Labour group in Bedfordshire, which states:
"This letter is to give you notice that the decision taken at the Labour Group on 31st January 1996 'not to set a budget' is null and void and that we will be reconstituting the Labour group."
It goes on to show that the central Labour party is taking firm control of the Bedfordshire county Labour group. It is not only the Conservative but the Labour party which is keen to centralise control of local government.
Ms Armstrong: I do not accept that.
I argued strongly in my previous speech that there must be an honest working relationship between the centre and the localities. I have never tried to give the impression from the Dispatch Box or anywhere else that that means that central Government should abdicate any responsibility.
Some things are not acceptable. Corruption is not acceptable and central Government should do something it. Malpractice is not acceptable and central Government must have reserve powers to take action against it. We argued for that consistently through proceedings on the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and I shall continue to argue it. Having a relationship does not mean that one side should abdicate responsibility. That is precisely what the Government have done. They have so tried to control local government that they have stifled any opportunity for local differentiation and determination. We want a proper working relationship that is much more balanced than at present, but we will not abdicate responsibility from the centre.
I want to deal with the problems of the current settlement and its dishonesty. We covered some of that ground during the Minister's speech. It is not honest for the Government to say that they are giving 4.4 per cent. more to education, when they know that education budgets last year were higher than the level at which they have set SSAs this year. The Minister kept saying that we have to compare like with like. He went on to say that authorities could use balances and that there were other ways—such as charges, which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley seems to think are not Government policy—through which local government could raise the difference.
The Minister seems not to have read the reports from the Treasury and Civil Service and the Education Select Committees. The Education Select Committee stated:
"We believe that it would not be possible for all local authorities and schools to draw upon reserves in future years in a way that a number of authorities managed in 1995–96".

733
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in her submission to the teachers' pay review body, said:
"some schools and authorities drew heavily on their reserves to meet the cost of the 1995 teachers' pay award … the Review Body should consider whether reserves in some schools and authorities have dropped below prudent levels".
She would not have said that if she did not know it to be the case. The opportunity to draw on reserves is not there in the way that it was last year. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee made the same point.
It is dishonest of the Government to pretend that there is money floating around in the system that can be used to meet their priority of more spending on education. Local authorities last year spent substantially more than the level at which Government have set SSAs this year. Even if expenditure were at the capping levels, it would not meet the 4.4 per cent. that the Government are talking about.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Lady confirm that I heard her correctly? Is she saying that SSAs for education should be increased to existing levels of expenditure, and is she committing the Labour party to funding local authorities up to that new level?
Ms Armstrong: I really am beginning to worry about Conservative Members. They do not seem to be able to listen. I am saying that the Government are playing a con trick on people. Conservative Members have written to schools to say that the Government have given their authorities more money to spend on education—I have copies of letters from almost every authority—which means that the schools should not need to make cuts. That is simply not true.
The Government have not given authorities more money, nor have they enabled them to meet increases. The Government know and admit that the reserves have fallen and that they were fully drawn in some places last year. There is no additional money in the system for school budgets to be increased by that amount in those authorities.
That is not the full extent of the dishonesty, however, because the Government have also admitted that there will be 86,000 more pupils in the system this year. They have approved a pay rise that is above the rise assumed when they set the standard spending assessment. They have legislated for all school transport to be fitted with new seat belts. Those changes alone—with inflation—more than outstrip the additional amount in the SSA, so it is a dishonest con trick to tell schools that there is extra money. There is not, and the Government know it.
They are undermining their credibility, but more than that, they are trying to undermine the credibility of schools, which will have to deal with all those issues because they have a legal responsibility to do so. Whether the Government are prepared to behave responsibly or not, governors need to and will do so. They know that they are being conned.
Mr. Kynoch: By implication, the hon. Lady is saying that she and the Labour party would put more funding into education. Would she answer my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who asked a
734
sensible and reasonable question. How much extra is she pledging, and where would she get it? Would she take it from health, for example?
Ms Armstrong: I am talking about the Government's honesty. They have made pledges and commitments that they know do not stand up. It is no good trying to brush that off by asking what the Opposition would do. We are talking about the Government's revenue support grant settlement this year and about letters that Conservative Members have sent to schools, saying that this is the money that is there. Yet the Government continue with their pretence. They continue to try to blame anyone else, including people who have not had responsibility for any of the actions of the past 17 years. It is convenient to blame them, because the Government refuse to accept responsibility for anything that they do.
This Tory trick—
Mr. Nigel Evans: How much extra money?
Ms Armstrong: I did not know that we were in government. Would the Minister like to swap sides, so that I can take responsibility for this year's revenue support grant settlement? Then I would be in government. If they want to swap sides, let them do so. Let them call a general election. Then we will take responsibility. I am not going to take responsibility for Government mismanagement and waste this year, or for Government cons about what is going on.
Mr. Jessel: Bring back Ernest.
Ms Armstrong: I will not rise to that, because I might have to tell the hon. Gentleman what he would say to him.
The reality is that the Government have perpetrated that con and pretended that they have given more money when they have not. That is not the only con. We also heard from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley all that business about what it would cost in extra tax and so forth. He accused the Liberals of taking with one hand and giving away with the other in their local income tax plan. That is even more proof that he does not know or understand what has happened this year.
The Government cut income tax by 1 p in the Budget. They have said that, at the most modest levels, they expect council tax to rise this year by the equivalent of 0.5p on income tax. In the Red Book, they said that, in the next three years, they expect the equivalent of 2p on income tax to be raised through the council tax. So the Government cannot tell the House that there is no balance between income tax and council tax. Given their assumptions for the development of council tax in the next three years, they know that the amount raised will be the equivalent of 2p on income tax.
We know very well that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. They are perpetrating the dishonesty that councils can raise more in tax, which will put more money into the budget. Councils will have to raise more in tax, but that is because the Government have deliberately pushed down their contribution this year and pushed councils into putting the tax up, which will be more unpopular. Once again, the Government are saying, pay more locally and get less.

735
The gearing effect means that councils will have to raise much more money to make up for the money that is not coming from central taxation.
The way in which the Government have approached the issue is totally dishonest. Education spending is already above SSA. To spend at SSA in the next year would mean reducing spending by the equivalent of £41 per pupil. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that council taxes will have to rise by an average of 8 per cent. to meet the Government's targets. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee questioned the ability of some local authorities to pass on additional educational provision to schools, and observed:
"This increase in spending does not, however, have quite the substance the Chancellor claimed for it".
As usual, the Select Committee expresses things in rather modest terms, but it is an important view. The Government have been dishonest in so many ways in the settlement, and that is a consequence of the Government's wish to do down local government and of their feeling that there is no room for local government.
I noted with interest the earlier words of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. He claimed success in working with local government. That is true, and he has won the respect of many people in local government, but he has done so because he is seen as out on a limb. The Minister is seen as someone who is not at one with the rest of the Government in their approach to local government. When we remember that the Government contemplated getting rid of local government altogether soon after the Prime Minister became leader and sought ways to get rid of the poll tax, we know just how far out of touch with the rest of the Government the Minister is.
It is critical that local government is able to act in the interests of local people. That is the aim and the whole essence of local government, and that is what the next Government will seek to enable local government to do. However, we cannot allow the Government to get away with such dishonesty, and local taxpayers know that they will pay more and get less. Local taxpayers know that the extra money that they will be asked to pay in council tax is simply a device that allows the Government to pretend that they are reducing taxation by cutting income tax rates. The Government need to pretend that to go into the next election, but we will ensure that people know that taxation has not been reduced—it has increased and will continue to increase.
9 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this serious debate. We all owe a considerable debt to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for introducing the debate, as it has given us an unprecedented opportunity to consider the roots of the Liberal Democrats' failure in local government. I wish to develop my personal theory as to why that failure has been so obvious and comprehensive.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: That is why we control so many councils.
Mr. Waterson: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I may be able to explain some of his party's present woes.
736
The fundamental problem is that the Liberal Democrats are a natural party of opposition. We all know that they would do anything for a vote, and all too often they take two sides of the argument on the same issue. That approach, coupled with some quite vicious campaigning techniques, means that the Liberal Democrats run, or have a part in running, a number of local authorities. Unfortunately, fantasy has now collided with reality, and making promises has collided with the need to make decisions.
A document called "Towards 1996" has been much quoted in recent weeks in the Chamber. It was produced by researchers working for the Liberal Democrat Whips Office and contains the following poignant remark:
"Obviously this document will have a very limited circulation."
Life never turns out quite as one plans. However, the document contains some especially interesting comments about local government. It makes the following fair point:
"Due to our strong base it is imperative that Local Government is seen as an unmitigated triumph for the Liberal Democrats."
That is a high test to set, and we should examine to what extent the Liberal Democrats have lived up to it.
Let us take the Liberal Democrats' own words on the subject. The document continues:
"Some of the councillors are new, politically inexperienced and potentially a liability."
Those of us who suffer with Liberal Democrat-controlled councils can agree with that. It also states:
"Our local government power base means that we may get blamed for some of the shortcomings of local government."
That sounds as though the shortcomings of local government were an act of God and nothing to do with those who run it.
The sad truth is that all too often the Liberal Democrats behave as though they were still in opposition. There are three distinct features to that approach. First, they blame everything on the wicked Government, even when the blame lies clearly on a failure in the local authority. In my area, the Liberal Democrats used to blame the county council for all their woes. That is a little more difficult now that the county council is run by a Lib-Lab pact. The second feature is an apparent inability or unwillingness to make decisions about anything really important. The third feature is an abdication of decision making to the general public. The Liberal Democrats will do anything to distance themselves from the possible unpopularity and the responsibilities that flow from actually making a decision.
All those factors, I submit, can be seen at work in the recent behaviour of the Liberal Democrats in East Sussex. Some months ago, the Liberal Democrats began by trailing stories of enormous cuts in spending, long before any realistic notion of actual funding levels could possibly be ascertained. Week by week, drip by drip, they issued press releases to the local media: they spoke of cuts to the fire service; then, a week later, there was a release about cuts in the library service; then there was one about cuts in social services and old peoples' homes being shut down. They also spoke about cuts in policing and, above all, in education. The latter was perhaps the most serious scare story of all, because, next to their own health and that of their families, parents most worry about the future of their children and their children's education.

737
The Liberal Democrats in East Sussex set up what they grandly described as a strategic forum to produce a document of some length establishing how the massive cuts were to be apportioned between the different sectors of education. That consultation drew in teachers, governors and parents, as well as local councillors, and played cynically on the emotions and expectations of parents, teachers and governors.
The Liberal Democrats went further. They demonstrated how they were abdicating responsibility by asking the public to tick various boxes to express an option as to whether French lessons or perhaps music lessons should be cut. That exercise not only showed the inability of elected councillors, acting on the advice of professional officers, to make decisions, but—
Mr. Malcom Bruce: What about the views of the public?
Mr. Waterson: The problem with that approach is that, if a child happens to be doing rather well at music, the last box that his parents will tick is that calling for a cut in music lessons, while the parents of a child who is miserably poor at French are unlikely to call for French lessons to be maintained.
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has asked about the views of the public. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to comment on the tactic adopted by the Liberal Democrats in Waverley. When they consulted the public, 63 per cent. said that they wanted a standstill budget and 11 per cent. said that they wanted a reduced budget. The listening Liberal Democrats, having consulted the public, put the council tax up by 7 per cent. Is that what they mean by listening to the public?
Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for yet another example of such tactics. I learned of a further example from the television at the weekend, which revealed that another Liberal-controlled council in Surrey consulted the public but proceeded to ignore what they said. One of the excuses for doing so was that an unduly large proportion of the respondents were older than the average age of the population. That was somehow supposed to be a reason for dismissing the public's view. In my type of constituency, we are fairly familiar with that kind of fake consultation process of which the Liberals are so fond.
The results of the public spending round on education have been very different from how they were described by the Liberal Democrats in their various documents. I apologise to the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), for quoting some of the points that I have made to parents, governors and teachers in an attempt to put the record straight about spending on education.
In East Sussex, despite all the gloom and doom-laden predictions, the education standard spending assessment has been increased by £7.264 million or 3.4 per cent. over the previous year. Just as important, by relaxing the capping criteria, the county council can, if it so chooses,
738
increase its budget by no less than 3 per cent. That goes to the heart of the issue so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Minister.
Ms Armstrong: How much money was raised in addition to what the council already spends on education?
Mr. Waterson: The reality, and the line taken by the Conservatives on the county council, is that, if that money is transmitted straight into education and schools, there is absolutely no reason for any cuts in school budgets.
Ms Armstrong: There is no extra money for schools.
Mr. Waterson: There is no reason for such cuts, and certainly not of the order trailed by the Liberal Democrats and some of their fellow travellers. I have sought assurances—as have many governors, teachers and parents—that the extra funding will be passed straight on to our schools.
We have heard very little recently from the Liberal Democrats about the alleged cuts in education funding. We also heard about cuts in police funding. That scare story was somewhat exploded by the following headline, which appeared in my local paper at the beginning of January: "£5m Christmas boost for Sussex police force". The Sussex police chief constable was said to welcome a Christmas present of £5.5 million to recruit more bobbies on the beat and to improve technology. The £5.5 million will provide for an extra 110 officers on the beat. That increase is over and above the large increase the previous year. More recently, the various committees have been asked to indicate what are called exemplary cuts of 1.5 per cent. of their budget. Again, a series of local media stories suggested that these were, in fact, the real cuts to be made.
The strategy now emerging, apparently, is that no real decision has been made about any budgeting in East Sussex as we near the end of the budgetary process. At the last meeting of the committee which considered these matters, the Liberal Democrats refused to discuss specifics and sought to rule out of order Conservative councillors who tried to initiate debate on the budget. The truth is that they are currently wallowing in indecision as to how to allocate money in the budget for East Sussex.
We know the problems involved in one of the solutions put forward by the hon. Member for Newbury—the freeing of the proceeds of council house sales. The hon. Gentleman's document states that the policy
"is worthy but no longer stands up".
His document continues:
"The freeing up of council house receipts should be kept as a front line policy as it is easily understood by the masses, however, detailed research should be carried out so that we know how much money still remains from the sale of council houses."
That strikes me as a cynical policy, cynically set out in a cynical document produced by a deeply cynical party.
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman has ranted on for some time about the inefficiencies and inadequacies of councils run by the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps he will tell the House why, whenever Liberal Democrat-run

739
councils take over from Tory-run councils, the Liberal Democrats tend to increase their majority at the following election.
Mr. Waterson: I do not know whether there is such a rule. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that trend will shortly be reversed. It takes a little while—even in Liberal Democrat land—for the chickens to come home to roost, but coming home to roost they are.
I commended the hon. Gentleman earlier on his choice of subject for the debate, but in fact it was an unfortunate choice for the Liberal Democrats, as it has given us the opportunity to direct a piercing shaft of light on their party's policies on local government and thus to throw into sharp relief the hypocrisy at the heart of so many of those policies. It is local government by scaremongering and it shows, time and again, that there is absolutely no point in voting for the Liberal Democrats in local government because, if they win power, they do not have a clue what to do with it.
9.13 pm
Mr. Chris Davies: Few things show more clearly the extent of the problems that local councils face than a letter which I received only last week from the governors of Fir Bank county primary school, in which the governors stated:
"Over the last few years the school has seen the loss of two teachers, one by non renewal of contract, the second by redundancy. This has caused massive upheaval in teaching practice.
The budget allocated to the school has been well monitored but the school has to run on a shoe string. There are not sufficient text books and other resources are scarce. The position places a very committed teaching staff under great strain, a situation which cannot be good for them or the school in general."
I endorse those sentiments.
I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have received similar letters. That school is in the metropolitan borough of Oldham. Oldham is not unique among local authorities in difficult financial circumstances. It is not a low-spending education authority, but the position has become worse in recent years. In last year's Budget, cuts of £900,000 were imposed on the education budget, and this year it looks as though the position will get worse. A similar cut seems likely as the council increases its charges for supply teacher cover.
In their letter, the governors entreat me as their Member of Parliament
"to give the funding of primary education your urgent attention".
No doubt the two Labour Members who also represent the borough of Oldham receive similar letters. Given the stand that they took on income tax—"stand" is perhaps the wrong word; I should perhaps refer rather to the sit that they took—when they had the opportunity, I can only suppose that they answer such letters with pious platitudes. In that division, the Liberal Democrats made it clear that we believe that quality public services and, above all, the provision of a good education system are among the hallmarks of a civilised society, and we did not seek to avoid the fact that there is a price to be paid for those services. Conservative Members have tried to criticise us for that tonight.
It is not the Labour party but the Government who must shoulder prime responsibility for the financial problems of local authorities and the cuts that they are being forced
740
to make in services throughout the country. The Government must bear responsibility because they directly control four fifths of local government finance and limit local authorities' freedom of action with what is left to spend. For years, the Conservatives have systematically undermined local government, stripped it of powers and authority to work for the community, robbed it of financial independence and reduced its status to no more than that of a Government agency, and it is obvious why they have done so—why they have repeatedly curbed the powers of local authorities to act on behalf of the best interests of their communities. The reason is that the Conservative party, which used to boast of being a party that supported decentralisation, has become a party of centralisation—a party which supports the concentration of power.
In recent years, far too many decisions have been taken by small groups of Ministers meeting in Cabinet Sub-Committees, and no true challenge has been posed to their decisions in any of the legislative processes through which their decisions passed. Power that used to be dispersed throughout the country has been centralised and locally elected representatives have little chance to influence it.
Over the years, local authorities have been repeatedly described by the Conservatives as profligate, inefficient and even financially irresponsible. I would never defend financial inefficiency in local government—people deserve value for money from their public representatives and public organisations—but for the Government to talk about financial responsibility is the pot calling the kettle black.
In the past 15 years, local government spending has increased by 21 per cent. and central Government spending has increased by exactly three times that amount—63 per cent. Perhaps that is not surprising, considering the way in which some of that money has gone—the disaster of the poll tax, the amount being paid to consultants advising the railway privatisers and the cost of paying for the privatisation of the Property Services Agency.
Central Government is capable of making enormous mistakes and the Government have made them, to the taxpayers' cost. Meanwhile, their policies have put local authorities of every political composition between a rock and a hard place when making financial decisions each year: they have no room for manoeuvre—no opportunity to take local needs into account.
Let us take some examples of local authorities which could hardly be described as run by wild-eyed fanatics. Wokingham district council—a Conservative council, run with the support of some independents—is already spending up to its capping limit, and expects to have to cut 5 per cent. this year. So much for the Government's generosity. Penwith district council in Cornwall, run by independents and Conservatives, is spending up to its capping limit, and cuts this year appear inevitable. Rutland district council, a mixture of Conservatives, independents and Liberal Democrats, is spending up to its capping limit and expects to make cuts of 7 per cent. this year.
I am not knocking the councils that I have mentioned: I merely draw attention to the difficulties they face. Councils of all political compositions face the same problems. The settlement that Ministers have described as

741
generous is far from that. The income tax policy announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn of last year is leading to council tax increases and service cuts in the spring of this year. The conclusion is inescapable that in its desire to centralise power the Conservative party's thinking is linked directly to the loss of Conservative influence at local level.
We had a rather predictable attack from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on Liberal Democrat control in the area that he represents. That is not a new phenomenon. Over the past 15 or so years, the number of Conservative councillors has dropped markedly, from 12,100 in 1979 to 4,800 now. For all the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, the Liberal Democrats have overtaken Conservatives in local government: we have become the second party, while the Conservatives have been relegated to third place. In some authorities, Conservatives are desperate to see the introduction of proportional representation to ensure that there is some Conservative representation left.
The process will continue. In May, not many elections will take place. Again, however, the Conservative party can expect to lose seats. Indeed, they will probably lose 300 or more, while at the same time the position of the Liberal Democrats, the second party in local government, will be duly strengthened.
Liberal Democrats are not acting irresponsibly. Three quarters of my party's councillors either run councils or are part of administrations where there is no overall control. Three quarters of our councillors have influence over the decision-making process within local authorities. Only one quarter of Conservatives left in local government have such influence. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, the electors are likely to give their support and endorsement to Liberal Democrat-run authorities in greater numbers in May.
Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood what I said. I did not contest for a moment that in many local councils, including Eastbourne, Liberal Democrats have control over the decision-making process. I said that they either make the wrong decisions or refuse to make any decisions.
Mr. Davies: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. It does not conflict with my argument.
As we look towards the May elections and as we reflect on the Government's record over the past 15 or 16 years, with declining representation in local government, it is clear that the Conservative party is facing oblivion at local level. It is rotting at its grass roots. It must concern Conservative Members, many of whom have been in this place for many years, that they return to their constituencies and find themselves at civic functions surrounded by Liberal Democrat councillors, their opponents, rather than the Conservative brethren of old.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been listening closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Macclesfield is a Conservative-controlled authority. It is in the north-west and it has overall Conservative control. Does he agree that in some councils where there is Conservative control, Liberal and Labour councillors will
742
work closely with the controlling group, as they do in Macclesfield? The responsible Liberals in my borough, like responsible Labour people, appreciate that the borough council must live within its means. They understand that they cannot blame central Government for all the problems that face local Government. Will the hon. Gentleman seek to present a balance while advancing his argument? Will he accept that there are good Conservative authorities and good Conservative councillors, who are to be found in my borough and who work closely with representatives of his party?
Mr. Davies: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I fully endorse his view about members of different parties working together for the common good of the community. That is at the heart of my party's belief in local democracy. Parties and politics should not always dominate in local decision taking.
I hope that it is a cause for some regret among hard-working Conservative councillors who have lost their seats over the years that, when they had the opportunity, they did not put up more resistance to the transfer of local government powers to central Government. It has certainly been a cause for regret among members of my party who strongly support the principle of local democracy that those Conservative councillors were not heard shouting from the rooftops about what was happening to the authority of local councils over the years.
Britain has a well-established local government base, but it is demoralised, undervalued and confined in its ability to tackle local problems and meet local needs. We need a new constitutional balance, with a clear separation of powers and duties between central and local government. Local authorities must have freedom and must be encouraged to become more innovative, entrepreneurial and dynamic. The Liberal Democrats want local government that is efficient and effective, and which not only provides services such as those specified by the Government but seeks out new ways to meet the needs and aspirations of its communities.
The reform of the financing of local government is essential to that. We seek the establishment of a local income tax because we believe that it would be the most effective means of giving local councils greater freedom and greater flexibility. Of course, it must be matched by commensurate initial reductions in levels of central Government taxation.
As I have said, there must be a clear separation of powers. Instead of curbing the authority of local democracy, the Government should be seeking to build on it, encouraging it to new endeavours and giving local people the opportunity to deal with the problems they face in their own communities in their own way, through the work of their locally elected representatives.
9.26 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I was told earlier that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench warm to the idea of me speaking on local government, probably because they recall that I spent 11 years in it. I hope that they will not be too put out when I say that I agree with the first 12 words in the Liberal Democrat motion. However, I suppose I should hasten to say before somebody on the Front Bench writes something

743
particularly uncomplimentary about me in the little blue book that those are the only 12 words of the motion with which I agree, and that the remainder of the motion contains some of the worst rubbish that has come before the House in a long time.
From my perspective, the greatest amount of rubbish is contained in the final 14 words of the motion, because they relate to the loss of Conservative local government seats. That is the greatest amount of rubbish I have heard in the context of my constituency, because in May, despite the words of the motion and what we have heard in the debate, my Conservative group kept overall control of Spelthorne borough council. That is splendid, but it gets better.
In May, this great Liberal Democrat party was on the march, on the rampage. That month, it started out with three seats out of 40 and ended up with three seats out of 40—a great Liberal Democrat triumph. The story gets better still, because there was a county council by-election in my constituency in December, and instead of the Liberal Democrat party standing still as it did in May, it went backwards. That was because by December my electors had had the chance to see the Liberal Democrats in action in Surrey and they did not like what they saw.
So much for the last 14 words of the motion; but some earlier parts are not much better. Perhaps in the few moments that are available to me I can give a few examples. First, the motion suggests that reforming local government finance will mean that, somehow or other, there will be a magical ability realistically to meet needs. That is what the motion says, but it is bland claptrap. The hon. Member for Newbury's speech made it crystal clear that the Liberal Democrats are not intent on reforming the local government finance system: they are intent on embarking on a spending spree with local government finance.
We were told about a new system. We were told that the Liberal Democrats want to raise more money locally—I believe that I am quoting—as well as raising more money through income tax to spend on local government.
Mr. Rendel indicated dissent.
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he said that his party wants to raise more money locally—I wrote it down. The Liberal Democrats' most recent manifesto said that they wanted to put 1 p on national income tax to spend on local education. That is what they said; I am not inventing it. Liberal Members have also said in this debate that they want to end capping, so that they can go on a real local spending spree.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce indicated dissent.
Mr Wiltshire: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) shakes his head, but I heard them say that. That is exactly what they intend to do.
Let us see if Liberal Members shake their heads and try to deny that, earlier in the debate, they said that they want to release capital receipts, so that they can have another type of spending spree. They are not denying that, which is quite helpful. Liberal Members have not proposed the reform of local government finance in this debate, but a disaster for local government finance and for local citizens.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I have not been in the Chamber for all the debate, the one advantage of the
744
new technology that we have in our offices is that one can follow the debate verbatim, and see the Speaker's face, from one's office. Does my hon. Friend accept that, if the Liberals were to introduce the type of policy that they have outlined tonight, it would be the most devastating form of hara-kiri and political suicide that any party could ever dream up and implement?
Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His local electors and my local electors are very sensible and do not intend to do that—they continue to elect Conservative councillors.
Let us take another example from the Liberal Democrats' motion which illustrates the truth of the issue. The motion suggests that we should condemn the Government's financial priorities for local government. What are the Government's priorities for local government? As I understand it, having been a practitioner before I was elected to the House and having taken a close interest since, the Government's first priority is to live within our means, nationally and locally. If we do not do that, we will go bankrupt and have no services at all.
The Government's second priority is to focus local government attention on core services, such as education and care in the community. The Government's third priority is to ensure that local government delivers real value for money. I know that the Liberal Democrats do not much like competitive tendering, because they do not believe in providing real value for money.
Let us compare the Liberal Democrats' priorities against those priorities. I shall use as an example my own county council, Surrey county council, which is Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled. What are the Liberal Democrats' priorities there? They are fascinating, and more people should know about them. The Liberal Democrats on the Surrey county council are quite determined to close fire stations, which even the Labour party does not want to do. The Liberal Democrats on that council have managed to organise the rejection of a £1 million grant for more nursery education in Surrey. That is one of their priorities in Surrey.
The Liberal Democrats on that council have some positive policies, one of which was absolutely magnificent. While trying to cut spending on education, they wanted to spend £20,000 to provide showers for staff who cycle to work. We should all be aware of that Liberal Democrat policy. The Liberal Democrats in Surrey also seem to be very keen on blocking the provision of adequate funds for the proper inspection of nurseries and old people's homes, which is nothing short of a disgrace.
The motion also contains the suggestion that Government action causes cuts in services. Coming from the Liberal Democrats, that is really rich. Since last December, I have heard the Liberal Democrats in my constituency telling my electors that they will have to face £15 million worth of cuts in county council services. I heard it all winter, until a few days ago, when they announced that they would not have to face £15 million of cuts now that they had seen the Government's settlement. But there was not a word of apology to my constituents for those scaremongering tactics. I have nothing but contempt for those in politics who are willing to frighten the elderly, worry parents and upset county council staff, all in the name of cheap and dirty party politics.

745
I said that I supported the first 12 words of the motion, which are:
"That this House calls for reform of the financing of local councils".
Two things are wrong with the financing of local government. They are not the things that the Liberal Democrats suggest. The first is the use of a formula to distribute money. The second is the passing of funds from the person who puts up the money to the person who spends it, via two or three other people.
We all know the problem of formulae. They are nonsense; they do not work. They are either too simple, and we all complain about them, or too complicated, and we do not understand them. I cannot understand why the money made available for services in my constituency should depend on the number of foreigners spending nights in hotels in London. If that is what a formula means, it demonstrates that formulae simply do not work.
The other thing about local government finance that worries me is the indirect funding mechanism we use. We all know what happens. Let us use education as an example. The Department for Education and Employment decides what the standards will be and how much money will be made available. It then passes the money to the Department of the Environment, which lumps it together with lots of other things, concocts a formula that depends on nights spent by foreigners in beds in hotels in London and many other things, and then passes it on to the councils.
The councils then ask themselves whether to spend the money on what they were given it for. The money has now gone through another pair of hands. The result is the sort of thing that Liberal Democrat Somerset has just done. The Department for Education and Employment set out to provide Somerset with an additional £7 million for education, but by the time it had gone through the Department of the Environment and Somerset county council, the schools in Somerset received only an additional £4 million. That is what is wrong with indirect funding.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly at this late hour and as I have not been present for all the debate. In his reform of local government, will my hon. Friend seriously consider a reform of the way in which we fund education? The funding is not transparent now, as my hon. Friend has said. Would he go further down that road?
Mr. Wilshire: That is exactly where I would go. As the public hold the Government responsible for education and the Government carry the can, they should fund all of it, set the standards and use local education authorities or grant-maintained schools as contractors.
I have confessed that I agree with part of the motion. It falls to me only to work out how I should vote. There are two simple reasons why I will not support the Liberal Democrat motion. First, I have explained that, of all the words in the motion, I agree with just 16 per cent. I hope that even the Liberal Democrats, the great exponents of proportional representation, will accept that, when someone is against 84 per cent. of a motion, that is an
746
absolute majority, and proportional representation becomes bunkum. That is really rather like my majority in my constituency, so they should not get too enthusiastic.
The Liberal Democrats should also understand that I will not support them because I am against a local income tax, which is what they say their motion implies, and I am against frittering away balances and abolishing constraints. It is really rather simple. I am perfectly willing to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I accept that it does not go as far as I would like, but not everything is perfect in this world. It makes a great deal of sense to me, and I commend it to the House.
9.38 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It has been a lively and interesting debate. The Minister engaged in a very fair discussion of all the points at issue. He acknowledged that there were different ways in which local government could be organised and financed and said that perhaps it was a matter of opinion and judgment which way one chose. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman prefers to support Government practice, but at least he acknowledged the opportunity for a different point of view.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) implied that he was against giving local authorities more freedom to determine their own priorities because they would misuse it. The fundamental problem is that currently between 80 and 85 per cent. of funding for local authorities is controlled by central Government, with the consequence that local government does not have genuine freedom to respond to the different needs of different electorates across the country.
The hon. Gentleman knows, as the Government do—despite their spurious claims about putting money into education when all they are doing is allowing spending assessments to rise—that every 1 per cent. increase in expenditure requires a 6 per cent. increase in the council tax to fund it because of the gearing.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: I cannot, because time is limited.
The fundamental problem is that, if we are to ensure that local authorities have genuine responsibility, accountability and discretion, a substantially larger proportion of their budgets should come from their own resources and from an ability to raise revenue from their own communities.
Everyone accepts that there is variation across the country that requires some central Government equalisation. There are considerable difficulties in working out the formula for that. However, the gearing is now completely out of kilter and far worse than it used to be. It is creating real difficulties for local authorities.
A point frequently made is that the Government say that they are increasing the standard spending assessment for local authorities. In other words, they are saying that local authorities can spend more money. However, they are not giving them that money through grants or allowing them to raise it in extra council tax—partly because the gearing is wrong, but also because of the existence of capping. The simple abolition of capping without reforming the system would not solve the fundamental problem.

747
The Government are deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting the position that they are imposing upon local authorities. The reality is that the amount of Government money going into education is under £100 million—about £80 million, I think. The remainder is simply the Government saying that authorities can spend money—although they have cut their grant and been capped. Of course, no one expects authorities to increase council tax by 30, 40 or 50 per cent. to raise the extra money, so the Government know that they cannot find that money other than through cutting services in other areas. The Government want to claim credit for supposedly putting in additional money while ensuring that the authorities get the blame for not delivering the services. That is what the Government are doing.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), is to respond to the debate. He would be disappointed if I did not refer to the position north of the border. Scotland is about to embark upon a completely new system of local government. With effect from 1 April, there will be 32 unitary authorities instead of the current mix of district, regional and islands councils. All those local authorities are facing real difficulties before they are even up and running.
I have made some attempt to discover what difficulties are arising in different parts of Scotland. For example, in Dumfries and Galloway—part of the constituency of the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—which is administered by Liberal Democrats and independents, there is some agreement that, for the first time, the council should spend up to its capping limit. Even so, that represents a 5 per cent. cut in overall spending.
In Perth and Kinross, which is controlled by the Scottish Nationalists, a 10 per cent. cut across the board is expected before the council is even up and running. Highland, which is independent-controlled, is looking at a 10 per cent. cut, as are several other authorities in that area. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said that the city of Glasgow is looking to a 10 per cent. cut. Those are real difficulties for local authorities.
The Under-Secretary, like me, represents the new council area of Aberdeenshire. It would be much more welcome to his constituents and to mine if he spent less time attacking a council that has not yet even come into existence and more time trying to work with his constituency to ensure the best possible quality of services and value for money. Although I have pointed out to him that his constituents voted overwhelmingly for the councillors who share the administration—Liberal Democrats and independents—he rejoices in his constituency being the sole repository of the four Conservative councillors in Aberdeenshire.
I shall give the Under-Secretary one specific example, which I agree involves an estimate. Aberdeenshire council estimates that the expenditure requirement to meet the housing capital plan for 1996–97 will be £16.5 million. Council officers estimate that capital receipts will total £6.2 million. Even if the Minister disputes the £16.5 million expenditure requirement, he must surely acknowledge that there is a massive disparity, and that local authorities consistently face the biggest increase in homelessness anywhere in Scotland and probably the
748
United Kingdom. He knows too that Aberdeenshire calculates that his estimate of what it should spend is about £24 million adrift of what it will have to spend if it is simply to maintain existing services.
The current administration and officials are looking right across the board for substantial savings, and I know that they will do their best to find those savings, but if the Under-Secretary continues to insist that the spending assessments determined by the Scottish Office bear any relationship to reality, he will find that there will be no budget for clearing the roads of snow or for road repairs and there will be severe cuts in all other areas. He must accept that his constituents would suffer as a result, especially since those service cuts would be accompanied by substantial increases in council tax. He ought to work with us to try to get the best services for his constituents, rather than work against what they have voted for: to deliver that balance of priorities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) pointed out, one of the fundamental areas in which we take issue with the Government is the extent to which they are trying to squeeze local government to make up for their own failures to budget effectively at national level. In order to fund their own priorities and try to find a shred of credibility in their central budgeting, the Government are squeezing local services so that they can blame the Opposition, which run those councils because the Government cannot win seats on them. That simply will not work.
The Government talk about extravagance, yet they spend £865 million a year on consultants to save—according to independent internal assessments—a few hundred thousand pounds. They spend £250 million a year on advertising and publicity—a 400 per cent. increase since 1979. They are wasting £200 million a year on empty properties—double the figure of two years ago. That is a hell of a lot of waste in central Government that is not being addressed.
I am sick and tired of the Government telling local government about empty properties when 15 per cent. of Government property is sitting empty. Indeed, the Government have a £30 billion borrowing deficit and had an £8 billion overrun on last year's forecast. That is the extent to which they have failed to get their own house in order, and it costs extra money—£2.5 billion a year in interest on the increased deficit.
It is also worth pointing out that, since 1979, Government domestic fuel consumption has risen by 25 per cent. The equivalent figure for local government is an increase of 14 per cent. It is pretty clear which level of government is a good housekeeper. It is not central Government. The conspiracy between the two major parties—in this context, the Labour party's position is deeply disappointing—in their desire to centralise control of all spending and deny local democracy, local accountability and genuine buoyancy of revenues that would enable local councils to do the job that they are much better equipped to do than central Government is deeply offensive. Local councils deliver much better services and provide much better value for money.
In those circumstances, I believe that the motion commends itself to the House, although I have not the slightest doubt that it will not receive the House's support. It is because of the fundamental difference between us

749
and the other two main parties that increasingly people are turning to the Liberal Democrats in local government. They know that we are prepared to fight hard for local services and for a system that will work—something that the Government cannot do.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows that his party tried to gerrymander the local boundaries to ensure that there would be a Conservative-controlled authority somewhere in Scotland. I listened with envy to Conservative and Labour Members talking about the difficulties of Conservative-controlled councils. We Scottish Members will never be able to testify to that, because there will not be any such councils after 1 April.
Nowhere in Scotland do the Conservatives have any power in local government, because, despite their attempts at gerrymandering, no council supports them. It is sheer vindictiveness that is making them put the squeeze on local government in Scotland and try to blame the Liberal Democrat, Labour, nationalist and independent parties that run the councils, but it simply will not wash.
9.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): We have had a full and interesting debate. I shall try to deal with as many of the detailed points that have been raised as I can in the short time available, but I begin with some general comments about next year's local government financial settlement, north and south of the border.
The impression given, certainly by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and other Opposition Members, is that local government has been singled out for attack by the Government. The motion refers to an
"assault on local authorities, which continues year after year".
[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear some hon. Members shout "Hear, hear," but that is typical of their mental arithmetic and financial controls, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Expenditure by Scottish local authorities, for example, has increased by 20 per cent. in real terms in the past 10 years. As for next year's settlements, local government has been treated very favourably despite the need to constrain public expenditure in order to sustain the economic recovery. In Scotland, the increase in aggregate external finance for local authorities is no less than £148 million. That is 2.9 per cent. up, or £26.5 million more than the Scottish block formula consequences of the English settlement.
Despite all the talk of expenditure cuts, every one of the new Scottish authorities will next year have scope to increase spending by at least 2 per cent. For the majority of councils, the increase is more than 3 per cent. If authorities improve efficiency and effectiveness, as the private sector and the rest of the public sector are having to do, there should be no need for any cuts in front-line services.
Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: No; I shall deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in a minute.
750
Within the Scottish settlement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given particular priority to the police and fire services. The police grant-aided expenditure assessment has been increased by some £44 million, or nearly 8 per cent., and the fire GAE has been increased by £13 million, or nearly 10 per cent. I hope that in, budgeting for next year, Scottish authorities will give the same priority to the police and fire services, which are of such great importance. I look to the authorities to take a responsible attitude.
The debate has covered a lot of ground. There has been much talk about the level of Government funding as opposed to local funding. There was talk of 85 per cent. coming from central Government and only 15 per cent. being raised through the council tax. The one fact that all Opposition Members failed to point out was that there is flexibility for local councillors to take decisions locally and to decide how to spend the funds.
As I said, the funds for Scotland next year are some 2.9 per cent. up on the current year, and, in a year of local government reorganisation, there will be an opportunity for local authorities to examine how they deliver services, look afresh at them and build on their experience, to try to find ways of doing things more cost-effectively.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) began by saying that he wanted to do away with capping and to move to a local income tax. The hon. Gentleman and all his Liberal Democrat colleagues are really saying that they want to raise extra funds to spend on local government. That is where the Government and the Opposition parties differ. We believe in trying to get a more cost-effective delivery of services with taxpayers' money. It does not matter whether the funds come from central or local sources—it is taxpayers' money, first and foremost. The difference between us is that the Government believe in trying to give good value for money for taxpayers.
The hon. Gentleman said that compulsory competitive tendering involved endless red tape. He should tell his constituents that a process of competitive tendering to ensure that they get the best possible value for money is endless red tape. They would not agree with him.
Mr. Rendel: My local authority has found that—because of the way in which the system was set up—every time it has gone in for CCT, it has had to go for a higher tender than would have been the case had it been allowed under the rules to go for its own people doing the same job.
Mr. Kynoch: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want his authority to go for the lowest tender to deliver the services to the specifications as drawn up.
The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) seemed to get in rather a muddle as to what she wanted to do. The moment my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned the word "pledge"—an horrific word for Labour Front Benchers—she ran in fright and was unable to say what she would do on local government expenditure. She says that more money is needed in education, but she does not accept that local authorities have the flexibility to spend. The long and the short of it is that significant amounts of extra spending have gone into local government this year, both north and south of the border.

751
My hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Spelthorne and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made valuable contributions on local government expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley in particular drew attention to the fact that the extra expenditure advocated by Opposition parties would have to be paid for by somebody—the question was, by whom. He talked about two new or extra taxes that are proposed by the Liberal Democrats. The first is national—a higher income tax—while the other is the local income tax. I have a message for my hon. Friend—in Scotland, we would have a third new tax. The Opposition want a tartan tax and a tax-raising Scottish Parliament that would make us less competitive and would cause major problems for the Scottish people.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) talked about the situation in Glasgow, and South Lanarkshire in particular. Of course, he has a problem. The allocation that is given to local authorities in AEF comes as a result of a formula that was proposed not by the Government, as was suggested by some Opposition Members—
Mr. McAvoy indicated assent.
Mr. Kynoch: I see that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that fact. The formula is well tried, and was drawn up in its present form in 1985 by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in conjunction with the Scottish Office. The formula was discussed in great detail by the distribution committee, and that was the body that decided on the distribution.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want the funding to be redistributed within Strathclyde, and I can understand why. While Glasgow may be regarded as a "loser" in this situation, there are many local authorities in the old Strathclyde region—East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire—that are "gainers". He will know that there is a transition scheme to take account of the mismatch. That scheme has been agreed by COSLA and was, in fact, its proposal.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Glasgow and the capping limit. Glasgow will be able to increase its expenditure by 4.9 per cent. compared with its notional budget. While the council needs to reduce expenditure to come within the capping limit, it would clearly like to increase expenditure at present by no less than 13.4 per cent.
The hon. Member for Gordon talked about Aberdeenshire, but he has a distinct problem. The notional budget for Aberdeenshire is made up by disaggregating the old Grampian regional budget. That was decided on not by the Scottish Office, but by Grampian regional council which, if memory serves me correctly, was a Liberal Democrat-Scottish National party administration. That administration must be responsible for the existing notional budget of £202 million, while the wish-list budget for the new Aberdeenshire council—a Liberal Democrat council—is some £240 million, a 19 per cent. increase.
The Government believe in good value for money while, I am afraid, the Opposition believe in increased taxation and increased expenditure.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 179.

Division No. 50]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Lynne, Ms Liz

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Maclennan, Robert

Barnes, Harry

Maddock, Diana

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Chidgey, David

Rendel, David

Dafis, Cynog

Skinner, Dennis

Spearing, Nigel

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Godman, Dr Norman A

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Harvey, Nick

Tyler, Paul

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wallace, James

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Mr. Don Foster.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Alexander, Richard

Durant, Sir Anthony

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Elletson, Harold

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Faber, David

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Fabricant, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bates, Michael

Fishburn, Dudley

Body, Sir Richard

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Booth, Hartley

Forth, Eric

Boswell, Tim

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

French, Douglas

Bowis, John

Gale, Roger

Brandreth, Gyles

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Bright, Sir Graham

Gill, Christopher

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gillan, Cheryl

Browning, Mrs Angela

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Budgen, Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burns, Simon

Gorst, Sir John

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butler, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cash, William

Hannam, Sir John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clappison, James

Harris, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hawkins, Nick

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hawksley, Warren

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heald, Oliver

Coe, Sebastian

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Colvin, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Congdon, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Conway, Derek

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Horam, John

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Devlin, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dover, Den

Key, Robert

Duncan, Alan

Knapman, Roger

753

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Legg, Barry

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Lidington, David

Sims, Roger

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lord, Michael

Spencer, Sir Derek

Luff, Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

MacKay, Andrew

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stem, Michael

Malone, Gerald

Streeter, Gary

Mans, Keith

Sweeney, Walter

Marland, Paul

Sykes, John

Marlow, Tony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thomason, Roy

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Moate, Sir Roger

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Tredinnick, David

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Trotter, Neville

Nelson, Anthony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Neubert, Sir Michael

Walden, George

Nicholls, Patrick

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Norris, Steve

Waterson, Nigel

Oppenheim, Phillip

Watts, John

Ottaway, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Page, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Paice, James

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilshire, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Powell, William (Corby)

Wolfson, Mark

Rathbone, Tim

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Noes:

Riddick, Graham

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the priority they have given to education and the police in the 1996–97 settlement for local government; approves the rigorous approach that Government takes towards all public expenditure, including that of local government; commends the flexibility they have given to local authorities to respond to local priorities; and urges local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available and to use their freedom responsibly in providing local services.

European Communities (Amendment) Act
10.12 pm
The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Finance Statement and Budget Report 1996–97 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The purpose of the debate and the motion is to satisfy section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which is sometimes called the Maastricht Act. It requires Parliament to approve the assessment of Britain's economic and budget provisions, which the Government then send to the European Commission. The information required is contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which the House will know as the Red Book. Since the introduction of the unified Budget, that report has contained the Government's tax and spending plans and has described how they are related to our economic and political objectives. Chapter 1 of the Red Book states that the report "will form the basis" of the report required under section 5.
In the past, the Opposition have had difficulty understanding that section 5 debates are not held to approve the Government's economic strategy. That strategy was debated after the Budget statement and continues as part of the Finance Bill proceedings.
My hon. Friends will take pride in the figures in the Red Book and in the stable macro-economic framework, sustainable growth, low inflation, falling unemployment and the firm grip on public expenditure demonstrated in those tables and pages. Those factors were all central to the Budget strategy and have already been approved by the House.
This evening's debate is about the transmission of that information to the European Commission in order to comply with our treaty obligations, and I invite the House to approve the figures.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is apparently not giving way.
10.14 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: According to the motion, the House is invited to take note "with approval" of the Government's assessment as set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". I must say two things straight away. First, I do not approve of the figures and forecasts in the Red Book; secondly, still less do I approve of the treaty obligations under the Maastricht treaty that we have entered into and to which the motion is related.
I do not think that the House and the country have fully understood that, while the Government—in my view, properly—at least negotiated an opt-out from the full acceptance of stage 3 of economic and monetary union and the single currency, they did not opt out of stages 1 and 2 of economic and monetary union. This evening, we are debating our obligations to economic and monetary union under stages 1 and 2.

755
I wish to draw attention to the obligations that are placed on us by our acceptance of stages 1 and 2 of the treaty. First, and this is the reason for the debate tonight, article 103 states:
"For the purpose of this multi-lateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy".
It further states:
"the Council shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission, monitor economic developments in each of the Member States".
If the Commission does not like what it sees and if the figures do not conform to what has been agreed, it can put proposals to the Council that may
"acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, make the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, decide to make its recommendations public."
Straight away, we have a bit of coercion in stage 2 of economic and monetary union.
The obligations on us go far beyond the obligation to make reports about our economic policy and to have them monitored and invigilated, because we also come under the terms of article 104c, which, as the House knows, deals with the subject of "excessive government deficits". That article states that the Commission
"shall examine compliance with budgetary discipline on the basis of … two criteria".
I think we are all familiar with those criteria—that the public sector borrowing requirement should not be more than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, and that the ratio between national debt and GDP should not be higher than 60 per cent.
Article 104c also contains a formidable arsenal of coercive measures that are available to the Commission and the Council if in their judgment our progress towards the 3 per cent. borrowing requirement for GDP is inadequate. If it is inadequate, the Council may make recommendations by qualified majority vote and, furthermore, it can make public its recommendations if the member state does not comply.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: I hesitate to give way, because I realise that the House will have many demands on the limited time available.
Article 109m, which the House has never properly considered, applies now, and it states:
"Until the beginning of the third stage"
that is, during stages 1 and 2—
"each Member State shall treat its exchange-rate policy as a matter of common interest."
The Government are making a report to the Council of Ministers, and presumably they made a similar report last year. What communication have the Government had with the Commission on progress towards economic union? What observations has the Commission made on the fact that the Government's public sector borrowing requirement, standing this year at 4.75 per cent., is well in excess of the reference figure of 3 per cent. contained in the treaty? What have the Government done to treat their exchange rate policy as
756
"a matter of common interest"?
Have they deliberately, as it were, operated on the exchange rate so that it is not a floating exchange rate, but a managed one shadowing the ecu and the currencies of the European Community?
Those are important matters, because they directly affect not only the macro-economic policy, our competitiveness through the exchange rate and our interest rates, because we are also pledged to price stability, but the crucial balance between public expenditure and taxation. The idea that that decision, which has belonged to Chancellors of the Exchequer ever since we have been an independent country, should be in thrall to the opinions of the Commission and the majority of the Council of Ministers is unacceptable to us.
Is that not why we have seen not merely cuts in public expenditure and increases in taxation in the past two years, but why the Government, whatever the immediate argument might be about the size of our PSBR last year, this year and the next, are hellbent on conforming with the criteria in the Maastricht treaty so that they will be able to join the third stage of economic and monetary union just as soon as the decision is made in 1998?
The Chancellor said in a reply to a question that I put to him on Thursday:
"I am a strong advocate of getting down towards a balanced budget and of low inflation. They happen to be the Maastricht criteria as well"—
happen to be—
"but as we move towards achieving them it is doing no harm to this country's economy."—[Official Report, 8 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 452.]
That may be true this year, but what about the next two or three years? What about the circumstances in which, once we are caught within the frame, we have to keep our borrowing requirements below 3 per cent.?
My objection is not only to the effect that is having on British policy but to the general deflationary effects that the constraints of economic and monetary union are having on the economic policies of virtually all our European neighbour states. Two months ago, Paris was in a state of riot as Parisians objected to the growing deflation to which President Chirac has unfortunately agreed in his arrangements with Chancellor Kohl. Just a week ago, Germany announced its highest unemployment figure for more than 50 years at 4.1 million. It is desperately worried about the problem of having to face the challenge of the competitiveness of countries whose currencies are free or floating and not pegged.
I remind the House, in case hon. Members have not seen it, of the interesting statement made by the former socialist Finance Minister of Spain, Miguel Boyer, as reported in The Times on 9 February. He said:
"Never has so much damage been done to so many by so few fanatics".
He summed up by saying:
"I do not share the dream of many technocrats and certain elite politicians of maintaining to the death a fiction about dates and conditions of convergence, hoping to catch nations by surprise with economic and monetary union, the significance and costs of which they do not know."
It is clear that a new mood is developing across Europe—a recognition of the nonsense, the madness and the unacceptability of adopting rules that will govern our economic lives and that have been conceived by arbitrary

757
decisions in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe. I believe that options are available to the Government and that we must set our ambitions much higher than simply keeping out of an economic and monetary union and a single currency. We should do all in our power—we have the opportunity to do so—to veto the wretched business throughout Europe.
10.25 pm
Mr. Barry Legg: This is a timely debate upon the issues of convergence and the monetary union. Paragraph 4.10 of the Red Book, which sets out the Government's policies on the matter, states:
"The general government financial deficit—which is also the measure used to monitor budget deficits under the European Union excessive deficits procedure—is forecast at £33½ billion for 1995–96, 4¾ per cent. of GDP. By 1996–97, it is forecast to be close to the 3 per cent. reference level for deficits used in the excessive deficit procedure."
That policy sounds fairly innocuous, but it contains economic, political and democratic perils. If we look a little further than the United Kingdom, we find that those perils are manifesting themselves even more strongly in France and in Germany.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is being most ungenerous? The Chancellor, during his Budget speech, particularly commended his Budget on the basis that it would conform to the convergence criteria. Those of us who have known the Chancellor for a long time know that, for at least 30 years, he has been in favour of further integration into the European Community. His Budget was but a step in that direction. I think my hon. Friend ought to be more generous to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend has certainly known my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer much longer than I. I would not seek to quarrel with him on those points. I believe that there are no automatic pilots with respect to economic policy; there are no two or three criteria that one can follow in economic policy to produce economic success. The world is not like that. If we look to continental Europe and, in particular, to what is happening in France and Germany, we see the follies of blindly attempting to follow convergence criteria.
We see the folly of following deflationary policies—both in fiscal and monetary terms. In continental Europe, fiscal conservatism, fiscal consolidation and inflation competition are all taking place at the same time. The terms of the convergence criteria on inflation require member states to be in the top three countries—or as close as possible to the top three countries—in inflation terms. France and Germany have suffered from overtight monetary policies over the past few years.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reply that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows that it may be, by chance, that we will comply with those criteria, but that overlooks the fundamental fact that this is a legal framework which is
758
binding upon all the member states under articles 2, 103 and 104c? As a result, we are bound to comply with these criteria, irrespective of whether we want to do so. That is the greatest problem. If we are to retain our determination to achieve our own objectives, we should do so on our own terms and not because it is imposed upon us.
Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that those are legal obligations that we willingly placed on ourselves—legal obligations under British and European law. I know that my hon. Friend spent some time studying the treaty when we debated it in the House. If we closely examine our legal obligations, specifically article 104c, we find that there is considerable flexibility for interpretation in the excess budget deficit procedure.
Most hon. Members probably believe that there is a 3 per cent. limit to budget deficits, and that countries that enter the single currency will have to meet the 3 per cent. deficit criteria, but that is not the position. A country does not need to have a deficit within 3 per cent. to achieve economic convergence and move to a single currency.
Article 104c says, about the definition of the Government deficit requirement, 3 per cent.
"or, alternatively, the excess over the reference value is only exceptional and temporary and the ratio remains close to the reference value".
Under the Maastricht treaty, that is the definition on which a group of politicians will decide whether we move to a single currency. They will sit in judgment and decide whether Europe's economies have converged sufficiently. They do not have to consider 3 per cent. They need only ask, "Is it close? Is the excess over 3 per cent. only exceptional and temporary?"
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Legg: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
Mr. Marlow: I think my hon. Friend can put his nightmare on one side, because I believe that it will not happen. No Conservative Government will take Britain into European monetary union. The economies of France and Germany are so destroyed and distorted that the political will would not endure a sufficient time to take them into economic and monetary union.
Perhaps my hon. Friend would go one further and look at Italy. Does he realise that the debt in Italy is such that to pay the annual interest on that debt costs Italy more than paying for defence, education, social security and health put together? Is there any chance that Italy will be able to join monetary union?
Mr. Legg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points. I know that he is a close follower of European affairs, and I am sure that it will not have escaped his notice that Mr. Weigel, the German Finance Minister, commented clearly on Italy's financial position in the autumn; it is obvious that the Germans do not want the Italians in the single currency. They accept the argument that my hon. Friend has made, that Italian debt is far too high. I am sure that, when the decision is made in 1998, Italy will not be part of the single currency.
Mr. Budgen: I am sure that my hon. Friend responds most politely to my hon. Friend the Member for

759
Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who, of course, is well known as an intellectual with a detailed interest in the minutiae of European politics, but many of us who take a more relaxed and ill-informed view of European politics approach those things with a certain amount of diffidence and say that it is difficult enough to understand the politics of our country without necessarily understanding the politics of what are now the great multitude of members of the European Union.
Is it not possible for us to say, "Perhaps they do want to join a single currency. Perhaps, for reasons of their history and their economies, it is right for them to join a single currency. We rather doubt that it will be in their long-term interests, but it is not for us, in our diffidence and uncertainty, to express an opinion about what is good for them"? Is it not important for us to express an opinion about what is right for our country, and is it not right for us to say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be short.
Mr. Legg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. We cannot altogether forget those countries and their economic affairs because, in 1998, the Prime Minister of this country must sit down with the other Heads of Government and make a judgment about the Italian economy. He has to make a judgment.
Mr. Budgen: Why?
Mr. Legg: It is a requirement under the terms of the Maastricht treaty, which is the law of the land. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would appreciate that by now. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will have to make a judgment about the Italian economy in 1998, and he will have to cast a vote when it comes to deciding whether Italy should join the single currency. I suspect, that if the Government cast a vote, it will not be in favour of Italy joining the single currency. That, however, is the procedure that we have agreed. In that sense, the Maastricht treaty has brought Europe closer together.
Convergency criteria are creating deflationary pressures on the continent. Unemployment in France is over 12 per cent. The figures from Germany last week were extremely worrying and disturbing. More than 4 million are unemployed in Germany. These two countries are trying to achieve the criteria, including a budget deficit of 3 per cent. At the same time, however, they are pursuing restrictive monetary policies that are impeding growth in their economies. In having overshot their deficit levels, their growth is much lower than expected—it is only about 1.5 per cent.
The required criteria cannot blithely be followed. If monetary policy is overtight, unemployment increases and the budget deficit rises steadily. The process then becomes self-defeating.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman's most recent point. Earlier, however, he suggested that there was a degree of flexibility. Does he agree that article 104c(2)(b) sets out two criteria? The hon. Gentleman quoted the first, which is to some degree an exception. The second, which is to some extent in parallel, states:
760
"whether the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product exceeds a reference value, unless the ratio is sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace."
Is that not also a constraint that adds to the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned?
Mr. Legg: I do not think that it is that strong a constraint. Again, it is a matter of judgment. The ratio is sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference level at a satisfactory pace. There is tremendous scope for judgment over such phraseology.
If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I suggest that he talks to German politicians about the prospects for Belgium joining the single currency. German politicians say, "Of course, the Benelux will have to join the single currency." Belgium's debt level is about 130 per cent., but that is not considered to be an impediment. Luxembourg, the only country meeting the criteria, has the same currency as Belgium. In that context, the politicians will not see an impediment in 1998 in bringing in the countries that they believe have sufficiently converged.
So we have deflationary policies on the continent. At the same time, we have the franc fort policy. We all know that it is an extremely damaging policy for the French economy. It is dragging down economic growth in France and driving up unemployment. Why does France continue to pursue such crazy economic policies? Why do the French not look over the continent? Why do they not look to the United Kingdom, where we have a floating exchange rate?
Why do they not recognise that, when the UK came out of the exchange rate mechanism, unemployment started to fall, exports started to increase and there were no worries about the exchange rate with the dollar? Why does France not say, "Floating is the right way to go. Let us abandon the franc fort policy and get our interest rates down"? The base rate is 7 per cent., and inflation is less than 2 per cent. Why does it continue to inflict such punishment on the economy and on the French people? The answer is political: there is a political will in France and Germany to have monetary union.
An objective analysis of the economic criteria and their consequences would lead to a rejection of the whole concept. There is no such analysis because of the political will behind the concept. When French or German politicians are challenged on the subject, they accept that there is economic nonsense in the system, but they then say, "But of course there must be political union as well." The German Chancellor and the President of the Bundesbank are completely frank about it.
We have had the message loud and clear from continental politicians, so why do not we hear it, and say, "Not only is economic and monetary union bad economically, it is not the right course for Britain politically; we do not want further political integration and a European super-state"?
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes a fundamental point. Therefore, does he agree that the only way that we can get out of the situation is not merely to wait for a collapse and the disorder that would follow, but to take the opportunity of the intergovernmental conference to

761
renegotiate the treaty and lead Europe back to common sense? We should do that to get away from the madness that is now infecting the whole of the European Union.
Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Legg: Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is time for Britain to take a lead on this important issue. That would not only help our partners to abandon the economic nonsense upon which they are engaged, but enable them to look more closely at the political consequences of their action.
The French Government still believe that there is a good prospect of Britain joining the single currency. From the British and French points of view, there would be nothing better than to make our position clear and say no to a single currency. The French would then understand that, if they wanted to go into a single currency, they would be going in with Germany.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Perhaps my hon. Friend would clarify one matter. Some of my colleagues suggest that this problem will go away because the convergence criteria cannot be satisfied and that, at the very least, France and Germany will probably seek a delayed start date to economic and monetary union. Does my hon. Friend share that opinion, or does he think that, because of their political objectives, France and Germany will drive ahead, come what may?
Mr. Legg: I think that France and Germany will drive ahead because of their political motives.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Legg: Perhaps I could finish dealing with the point before giving way.
Many times in the past, this project seemed to have been derailed. In the Danish referendum, the Danish people voted against the whole project, but it was afterwards put back on the rails. We thought we saw the break-up of the exchange rate mechanism in August 1993, but the ERM was reconstructed with 15 per cent. bands and the project went on. As I have said, political will and legal obligations are driving this project and I cannot see it being derailed unless Britain explains the economic and political disadvantages.
Mr. Budgen: Why do we have to keep waiting for it to be derailed in Europe? Many people concede that it may be right for some European countries. It would be a great impertinence for us to tell them what was right for them. Surely it is the role of political leaders in this country to decide what is right for Britain and simply to say, diffidently and kindly, "It may be right for you but it is wrong for us."
Mr. Legg: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The British Government should certainly say that they consider that the single currency is wrong for Britain and
762
for the British people. However, we cannot look at ourselves as an economic island. Many of our exports go to France and Germany. In the Red Book, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has forecast that we will have 3 per cent. economic growth this year. I believe that that is extremely unlikely. One of the reasons is that economic growth in France and Germany is so poor because those countries are following their current policies. I see no harm in Her Majesty's Government talking about not only the constitutional but the political aspects.
Economic and monetary union would be damaging economically. I do not believe that the idea of a single currency will work, even between Germany and France. Last week, we had an extremely serious development in the concept of the single currency. The Bundestag acted to reduce the mobility of labour in Europe. It passed a law ensuring that foreign workers could not be paid less than German national workers. That will impede the mobility of labour in Europe.
When one is committed to the concept of a single currency, to take measures to reduce mobility of labour is highly irresponsible in economic terms. It is particularly so, given that the German Government and people do not want to raise their taxes to make higher levels of fiscal transfer payments around the single currency area.
Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend has suggested that the mechanism is being driven by a political, not an economic, agenda. He and I are both accountants. Does he suggest that the only way in which economic and monetary union between France and Germany is likely to come about, especially if it is to involve some other countries, is if the convergence criteria are fiddled? A number of countries cannot meet the criteria in the next five, 10, 15 or possibly 20 years. If that is the case, the only way in which economic and monetary union can come about is by fiddling the books.
Mr. Legg: Like my hon. Friend, I am extremely reluctant to predict precisely economic conditions in the coming few years; to predict deficits or inflation levels for any country. However, I think that he has grasped the point that the only way in which the criteria are likely to be followed and monetary union is likely to take place is if there is flexibility and, in my hon. Friend's terms, the figures are fiddled and countries do not stick to the letter of the legislation. That is a great danger.
If the treaty were inspired by a desire to achieve true economic and monetary union, we would not have these odd convergence criteria. We would look at all sorts of convergence criteria within the real economy. We would look at levels of unemployment, how financial markets worked in different countries, trade flows and so on if the desire was genuinely economic. If it were genuinely economic, would we need the criteria? If countries are coming together, markets will produce convergence. If we trade more and more with Germany or with France, convergence will take place naturally. It is not for states to enforce convergence on themselves and other states.
I believe that the EMU project is political. It is politically damaging. It is damaging for democracy. In France, President Chirac was elected on a manifesto that involved promises of lower taxes and a pledge to cut unemployment. Within six months of taking office, he has

763
reverted to the disastrous policies of Francois Mitterrand. He has put at the forefront of his policies the reduction of the budget deficit and adherence to the franc fort. Those are dangers for democracy, with politicians having the same agenda, and an agenda in France which is not in the interests of the French people.
Pursuit of the convergence criteria is economically damaging across Europe and politically dangerous for Europe. If we are to avoid what I believe to be the catastrophe of a single currency, we need to exercise a countervailing political will. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made a good point—that Britain must be firm and exercise countervailing political will to save Britain from the single currency and to help our partners to realise the dangers they face.
10.50 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) referred to Germany. I do not know to which German politicians he has been speaking, but certainly Mr. Waigel wishes to lay down a law that, once we get to 3 per cent., we find another peak ahead and have to get to 1 per cent. If we cannot get to 1 per cent., we are denied regional development grants and payments out of the budget.
Mr. Legg: That perfectly illustrates my point about political union. It cannot stop at monetary union. The Waigel proposals are an example of the political union that will have to follow. There will have to be central direction of fiscal policy following on from a single monetary policy.
Mr. Davies: That may be the case. I merely make the point that it is in the interests of many in Germany, and certainly of business men, to devalue the deutschmark. For years, the German economy has benefited from a slightly undervalued mark. Once unification took place, interest rates had to rise and, if one can talk about undervaluation or overvaluation in a free market, the mark is now probably overvalued. That is something that the Bundesbank has tried to avoid over the years.
With an overvalued mark, German exports to the economic area of Europe will suffer. There is a certain schizophrenia—if I may use that word—in Germany as German business men wish for a weaker currency. There is no doubt that the euro, if it happens, will be weaker than the current value of the mark.
To some extent, this debate is about paragraph 4.10 of the Red Book. It refers to
"The general government financial deficit".
In a curious phrase, written carefully by the Treasury, there is then a dash and the paragraph continues,
"which is also the measure used to monitor budget deficits under the European Union".
Perhaps even when I was at the Treasury many years ago there was something called the general Government financial deficit, but it certainly was not computed in accordance with a European system of accounts. We get the feeling that the Treasury is a little worried about suggesting that paragraph 4.10 exists because of the Maastricht treaty, but it is there for no other reason. There is no need to compute those figures according to something called the general Government financial deficit.
764
I want to make a pedantic point to the Paymaster General. We do not have the figures for the calendar year 1995. With the Maastricht treaty, the final hurdle to be overcome will be the figures for the calendar year 1997, which will come out some time in 1998. We are on calendar years. According to the Commission, its estimate of Britain's general Government financial deficit for 1995 is 5.1 per cent. of gross domestic product. In paragraph 4.10, we are told that for 1995–96—which goes into the fiscal year—the Government's deficit will be 4.75 per cent. It then says that it is forecast to be close to 3 per cent. in 1997.
As 1995 is over, and it is not terribly difficult to work out the figures, could we have tonight, if possible, the figures for the general Government financial deficit for the calendar year 1995? On the Commission's figures, which were forecast before the end of the year, the average for the 15 countries of the European Community for 1995 was 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. The British figure was 5.1 per cent. slightly higher than the 5 per cent. forecast for France. Will the Minister tell us the present position? Those ridiculous figures are to be entrenched—indeed, are entrenched—in law. I do not know what the deficit in Britain should be this year or next year. Perhaps it is correct to estimate 3 per cent., 1 per cent. or 8 per cent. Nobody can judge what the figure should be. Nobody wants to borrow too much if possible. Why entrench such figures in law?
I believe that there was an attempt in the United States by Mr. Newt Gingrich and others to try to entrench the concept of a balanced budget into the American constitution of all places. The attempt was thrown out because the Americans could not possibly stomach the concept that economic fashion and figures for it should be entrenched in their marvellous constitution. Yet that is what we are doing. We are entrenching figures that have been plucked out of the air by fanatics, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, in a fundamental law—a kind of natural law—of the European Community. Not only will they be law; they cannot really be changed—they can be changed only after 15 countries agree that they should be changed.
Mr. Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if the arrangements are met for entering stage 3—if the Maastricht criteria are fully complied with—a central bank will be created, the governors of which will not be allowed to seek or take instructions from their member states? Does that not add a great deal to what he is saying?
Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman and the House will be well aware, the whole premise is that the power is reserved for the European central bank. A few weeks ago, I read a rather pompous editorial—I think that it was in The Independent—which suggested that it would be marvellous if the European central bank fixed interest rates for the whole economic community. How on earth can one fix one rate of interest for that whole area with its diverse economies? Presumably that is what the bank would have to do. Otherwise, it might have to set different rates for different areas.
Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman talks about fanatics fixing the figures in law. Is it not a cause of great chagrin to him that among those fanatics are his own Front-Bench team?
Mr. Davies: Certainly not—I would never suggest such a thing of either my hon. Friend the Member for North

765
Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) or, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who could never be described as a fanatic in any capacity. I repudiate that charge completely.
Mr. Budgen: On the general problems of how excessive deficits might work out, let us suppose for the sake of argument that we were in the single currency and we had a war—over the Falklands, for instance—which initially did not turn out very well, cost us a great deal of money and we had to run a very large deficit for two or three years. Let us also suppose for the sake of argument that many of the Latin countries in the European Union disapproved of the war.
Would we not find ourselves exposed to very considerable pressure from people who disapproved of that war to change our national policies so as to conform with their idea of what happened to be a reasonable deficit? Am I wrong in thinking that that could be a major infringement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make interventions lasting well over a minute.
Mr. Davies: I shall not answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention in detail, but I should have thought that, once one had transferred levers of economic policy and economic power from one's own Government, one's capacity to wage war must be extremely limited. I do not believe that one can divorce economic matters from matters of defence and foreign policy.
Mr. Spearing: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend talked fantastically and ridiculed the idea of setting a single interest rate for the whole Community. Does he agree that people who insist on the beneficial effect of a single market will probably insist that that may well be the aim? They will claim that without it there will not be the great level playing field for competition that they crave.
Mr. Davies: That may indeed be the case. I am not clear in my own mind whether the European central bank will fix one interest rate or more than one. I presume that it will fix one for the whole area. We talk about a single currency, but if we get to 1999 and only two or three countries—France, Germany and Luxembourg—have met the necessary criteria, we shall not have a single currency. We may have something called the euro, which is merely one currency in a very large area. That, too, creates problems.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has been in correspondence with the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission regarding one of the other convergence criteria—membership of something called the European monetary system. Clearly, my right hon. Friend will deal with the matter in another debate and I do not want to steal his thunder, even if I could. I simply ask the Paymaster General what is happening to that criterion.
Mr. lain Duncan-Smith: It has disappeared.
Mr. Davies: It has not disappeared, because it is mentioned in the treaty. I am a pedantic lawyer, and I believe in law, words and treaties. I do not think that treaties should be torn up. Article 109j refers to
766
"the observance of the normal fluctuation margins provided by the exchange-rate mechanism of the European Monetary System, for at least two years, without devaluing against the currency of any other Member State".
In reply to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister said that he did not know what had happened to it. Jacques Santer does not seem to know either.
Mr. Duncan-Smith: It has gone.
Mr. Davies: It cannot have gone; it is in the treaty. We can make it go if we wish, but only by amending the treaty. The Commission does not know what to do. Presumably, the embryo bank does not know either, but it has to produce reports on the basis of those criteria.
Articles about the European Union tell me that it is based on the rule of law. Indeed, in Luxembourg a splendid building—the European Court of Justice—was built to the rule of law. It has an Advocate General, judges, rapporteur judges, registrars and a legal secretariat. It is a veritable empire of the rule of law.
There is clearly a problem, because in 1988 neither the Commission nor anyone else will know what to do about this criterion.
Mr. Legg: That is what they want.
Mr. Davies: That cannot be so, because the treaty must be based on the rule of law. Treaties have to be interpreted, and the only body that can tell us whether a criterion has been met must be the European Court of Justice. When the European Union sought to come to an agreement with the European Free Trade Association, the first agreement was thrown out by the European Court of Justice. In fact, the Commission asked the court to give a declaratory judgment. I am sure that in the continental system it is perfectly possible to get a declaratory judgment. I suggest to the Paymaster General that the Government would be doing everyone a favour by sending the matter to the European Court of Justice for a declaratory judgment as to whether this criterion is in or out.
Mr. Legg: The point that the right hon. Gentleman is making adds to my argument that politicians will seek to interpret the criteria as flexibly as possible. They are not supposed to, but that is what they will want to do. What sort of judgment does the right hon. Gentleman think is likely from the European Court of Justice, when part of its objective is to achieve ever closer union?
Mr. Davies: I do not know—perhaps we should reserve that matter for another occasion. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am merely trying to be helpful to the Government. The poor Prime Minister does not know, Jacques Santer does not know—nobody knows. The people who should know, however, are the judges in the European Court of Justice.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the judges in the European Court of Justice frequently disagree among themselves? In a recent case, Advocate General Karl-Otto Lenz offered a 23-page opinion that was totally rejected by his fellow judges. That is not all that uncommon.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is not a lawyer, and I can see that he is not an expert on European law. If he were,

767
he would know that the judges are separate from the Advocate General. The Advocate General is a concept imported from the French system; I believe the French translation of Advocate General in the conseil d'état is "the Government commissar". From time to time, the court overturns decisions from the Advocate General, but the contrary has mainly been the case in the past 20 years.
Let us not digress, however. All I am saying is that we should give these guys a chance, as it is their job to tell us whether the criteria apply or not.
Mr. Marlow: The convergence criteria are set out in a protocol. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of protocol 6, which says:
"The Council shall, acting unanimously … lay down the details of the convergence criteria … which shall then replace this Protocol."
How does the right hon. Gentleman react to that?
Mr. Davies: I do not understand that very well, either. Perhaps that is a subsidiary question that we could send at the same time to the Court of Justice for the judges to answer. The Paymaster General should consider that the only body within this troika of institutions—the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the Parliament—that can adjudicate is the court.
Finally, I find it quite extraordinary that, in an age when the slogan very often is "Power to the people", when politicians are held in considerable disrespect, when people feel that they are losing power and when we have a global economy, we are debating proposals that would entrench undemocratic power in various institutions. I should have thought that, as politicians, our concern should be that there is a gap developing between us and the public. This proposal would merely make it worse, as it removes all hope from general elections and all possibility of democratic change. I do not know what the Paymaster General can do on the matter, because it is law already. Perhaps he could send that to the European Court as well.
11.7 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: The time is late, and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for keeping you up late, as I know how hard you work. On the other hand, I usually turn up at this time, first because Governments usually do nasty things after 10 pm, and secondly because I find that the gentlemen of the press who often report these matters have all gone home, despite the fact that something rather devious is happening.
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He is an optimist, whereas I, as he knows, am very much a pessimist. The issue he raised is fundamental—what happens in 1998 if we have to find new criteria? If we look at the treaty, we see that every member state that wanted to join apparently had to have fixed exchange rates for two years. We were told that that was irreversible, but we know now that it has been totally scrapped.
Article 6 of the protocol on page 218 of the treaty states that if we want to create new criteria, we must do it by unanimity. To that extent, it would appear that Britain has some kind of veto. But I can honestly say to the right hon.
768
Gentleman—whose attendance and commitment I never doubt—that Members who think that that is the case can forget it.
I received a letter this morning from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whom I asked a question on that point in a debate that we had some weeks ago. I asked what will happen when we come to consider the issue of new criteria, and my hon. Friend replied in her letter that the
"Heads of Government will decide in spring 1998"
which countries qualify. Basically, she said that as the exchange rate mechanism no longer operates within the same bands as it did when the treaty was drafted, it is not clear how the criteria may be interpreted, but the Government do not believe that we need an interpretation now.
When 1998 comes, it will not be a case of unanimity for new criteria. Member states will sit around and decide. Britain will not have a veto: no country will have a veto. As happens time after time, hon. Members think that they have been given assurances. They think that something is in writing, and that they can go to the courts, but basically it is all a dead loss.
I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present. We had a debate on economic and monetary union on a Wednesday morning—we talked of nothing else—but, sadly, the Chancellor was unable to attend. I am told that he is busy in the mornings. Now we are having another debate on a vital issue. I should have thought that the Chancellor could be present. While I have immense respect for the Paymaster General, I feel that the House deserves some factual guidance on issues such as this.
My constituents thought that they were voting for someone who would support Conservative policies. No doubt people who voted for Opposition Members—respected Members, when they stood for election—thought that they were voting for Labour economic policies.
Mr. Jenkin: And the same applies to Liberal Democrats.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sure it does. They have some policies on this, as on everything else.
Article 103 shows us the position in regard to economic policy. Broad guidelines for all member states are laid down, on advice from the Commission, by the majority of the Council of Ministers. The purpose is to check on whether Britain is following the guidelines. Nothing could be clearer: if we do not do so, we shall get a rocket from the Commission. That is set out clearly in paragraph 4.
I am sure that the Minister will not say this, because he is one of the honest guys, but other Ministers might say, "Do not worry about it. It is just guidance." However, whether people vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National party, Communist, Trotskyite or anything else, the economic policy of the UK Government must be in accordance with broad guidelines laid down by the Council on the advice of the Commission. People should be told what is happening.
I wish to blazes that, instead of sending the Commission this ridiculous Red Book, the Government would give some idea of the damage being done to the

769
United Kingdom by European Union policies. What has happened to our trade as a result of EU membership? Is it or is it not true that, since we joined the EU, where we used to have a positive balance of trade, our accumulated deficit is now £100,000 million? That is a vast amount, and great damage has been done to the UK economy, not through our fault but because of the burdens that we have had to incur.
When will the Government tell us the truth about the common agricultural policy? They have put lovely words in the Red Book, saying that expenditure is up this year and they are sorry about it, but there are balancing items. Is it or is it not true that the cost of the CAP this year—1996—is £9,000 million more than it was in 1994? That is a massive increase. Time and again, stupid Agriculture Ministers—along with people speaking at party meetings, and even Liberal Democrats at their conferences—say that reform is upon us and the cost is falling. The plain fact is that it is going up and up.
I was appalled to see in the Red Book—I do not think that we can possibly send this to the Commission—that contributions this year will unfortunately be higher, although they will be lower thereafter. I have seen Red Books for about 31 years. Every year in which we have been in the EU people have said, "Unfortunately, the position is worse this year, but do not worry—it will be better next year." It is like the Bob Marley song: "Don't you worry about anything baby, because everything's going to be all right."
This year, the figure will be £2.89 billion—£5 every week for every family. If the Government send the Red Book without revealing the damage that the EU is doing to Britain, they will not be giving an honest assessment.
My last point concerns the massive burden on Britain of all the directives. I am honestly sick—and I have been here for 31 years—of hearing Ministers say that the burden of EU administration is going down, that it is less this year than it was the year before and it is going to be even less next year. We know the facts. We have seen the superb pamphlet produced by some of my hon. Friends, which points out the dangers to the economy of that mass of legislation.
I wish that the Labour party, most of whose members I honestly respect as good, hard-working people, and the Conservatives—who are indeed waking up—would start to ask themselves, "What the blazes are we doing to our people?" What about the poor people of France, where extra unemployment is being created every day because of a mad policy of artificial exchange rates?
If only we had more Ministers like my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General—who, in all sincerity, is one of the good guys—instead of some of the twits on both sides of the House, who would tell people the truth. Is it true that our economic policy is now guided by Europe, no matter who people vote for? Is the cost of the common agricultural policy going through the roof? Is it true that our country is being damaged and that our poor friends in Europe are suffering? Is it true that, no matter what hon. Members think, they can control, when 1998 comes, a little group of Ministers will decide who goes forward to economic and monetary union? It is time we played straight and told the truth and it is time that the nation woke up.
11.15 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: This debate has been worth attending if only to hear the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) quote Bob Marley.
I shall deal first with the domestic economy and then monetary union and convergence. Whatever the Minister says, Britain is foundering a long way from the economic miracle proclaimed by the Government and of which the Paymaster General invited us to be proud. Inward investment last year was only 40 per cent. of its 1989 peak. The tiger economies are growing by 8 per cent. while Britain averaged 7.1 per cent. in non-oil growth between 1979 and 1993—the worst growth record of any post-war Government.
When the Tories say that we have never had it so good, the trouble is that many of our competitors are having it much better. Our growth is lower than was predicted last year; business investment is half what was predicted last year; borrowing is higher than was predicted last year and tax revenues are falling.
Mr. Jenkin: Why is it that, whenever Labour spokesmen get the opportunity to discuss the real issues of economic and monetary union, they want to talk about something else?
Mr. O'Brien: As I said, I will come to Labour's position on EMU in some detail. I realise that the hon. Gentleman will not be interested in the damage that has been done to the British economy—the loss of jobs and businesses, the way in which our economy has been undermined by the Government—because he does not have a fundamental concern for the British people or the economy.
Let us consider the claim by the Conservatives that Britain is the enterprise capital of Europe. There are 15 countries in the EC. How well does the UK measure up to its competitors?
Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way after I have told the House how Britain fares. On growth, Tory Britain is the third slowest-growing economy in Europe. On inflation, Tory Britain has the fifth highest figure after Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. On long-term interest rates, Tory Britain has the sixth highest in the EC, which reflects our weak economy and lack of investment. Tory Britain has a trade deficit in manufacturing—a tragedy for a manufacturing economy.
Tory Britain has the lowest proportion of young people aged between 15 and 24 in education in Europe. On unemployment, Tory Britain has the seventh highest unemployment level overall and the fourth highest for men. On job growth, Tory Britain has the fifth lowest over the period 1979 to 1994. On investment, in Tory Britain investment per head is the fourth lowest in the European Union. On prosperity, GDP per capita is the ninth lowest in Europe. Britain in the wider world has fallen from 13th to 18th place in the international prosperity league.
Mr Budgen rose
Mr O'Brien: I give way to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) so that he can deal with that indictment of the Tory Government and their record in Europe.
Mr. Budgen: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that there has been a clear division in the Government's economic policy between what happened before 16 September 1992 and what has happened since? For about two years, there was an extremely harsh squeeze, when the money supply dived down to a very low level and a great number of businesses went to the wall. Things have looked up enormously since then. The economy has expanded and the money supply has been allowed to expand somewhat—some would argue, too much—recently. But we have had a period of sustained growth and falling unemployment and most people make a clear division between those two periods.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is making his third speech this evening.
Mr. O'Brien: I accept what the hon. Member says. There are divisions in the Government and in Government policy. After all, the Prime Minister, as Chancellor, brought Britain into the exchange rate mechanism, presumably a policy that the hon. Gentleman would condemn. Consider the way in which the Prime Minister has been running the economy, with 1 million fewer people in employment since he became Prime Minister.
The Red Book discloses Britain's economic recovery. It was so precarious that the Chancellor had little room for manoeuvre on tax cuts in the Budget. He ended up with a combination of a penny off income tax and putting £9.5 billion on borrowing next year. The public sector borrowing requirement forecast for 1995–96 has been revised upwards from £23.5 billion in the Treasury summer forecast and from £21.5 billion in the Budget before last. It is now £6.5 billion higher than expected in 1995–96, at £29 billion. It will be £9.5 billion higher than expected in 1996–97, and £10 billion higher in 1997–98.
The reason that the economy is in such difficulties is clear. Throughout the past 16 years, the Conservatives have neglected investment, squandered the proceeds of North sea oil and, in a display of boom and bust economics, put us into the two worst recessions since the war. That in turn has damaged the ability of industry to respond to recovery.
The Budget forecast for investment growth in 1995 is now 1 per cent. The recovery—such as it was—is in danger. It was based upon an export-led drive, fuelled by a—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box is not giving way.
Mr. O'Brien: I may give way a little later, but not at the moment.
The recovery was fuelled by a 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound, following our ignominious withdrawal from the ERM, but there is still a limit to how long we can run an economy on devaluing our currency.
772
The Government have not dealt with some of the long-term problems of the British economy. They have just put off resolving them until after the next election, when Labour will have to deal with them. It is the ordinary families of Britain that the Government have really let down—the workers on the assembly line or in the office. For them, right-wing economics has too often meant few or no wage rises in the name of competitiveness, job insecurity to make labour flexible and the fraying of the safety net. Middle and lower-income people are spending more hours working, less time with their children and bringing home an income inadequate to meet housing and other costs. They saw the Government impose the biggest tax hike this century in the year after the 1992 elections, beating even Geoffrey Howe's 1981 Budget when personal allowances were not indexed.
The overall tax burden will be 36.5 per cent. next year, up from 34.75 per cent. in 1992—more than when Labour left office. It is forecast to rise each year until the end of the century, reaching 37.5 per cent. by 2000. That is the burden of Tory failure paid by the British people.
Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether we could get back to the topic of the debate. This is a major constitutional debate about economic and monetary union.
Could the hon. Gentleman say why his party, which is going to turn the constitution of the United Kingdom upside down, totally ignores the major constitutional issue of the day, which is the powers that we have already transferred to Brussels and the powers that would be transferred to Brussels if those on the Labour Front Bench had their way and transferred our currency, sovereignty, control over our exchange rates and interest rates and control over taxation? Will the hon. Member come to the point and tell us what he thinks about it, what he would do about it and why his party is going down a narrow road on constitutional issues and missing out that major constitutional point? It will not be missed out when the election comes.
Mr. O'Brien: I wished to rise before the hon. Member completely lost his cool. The position of the Labour party on European economic and monetary union is quite clear. We approve the principle of economic and monetary union, but we have questions about the practicalities which still need to be resolved. In principle, Labour believes that in the longer term a move towards economic and monetary union through the creation of a single currency will produce significant benefits for the people of Britain and Europe.
In particular, a single currency would remove the cost of currency transactions, which have been variously estimated. It is hoped that it would boost inward investment by reducing exchange rate risks and, in the longer term, would create a more stable economic environment for industry by reducing currency speculation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. O'Brien: Unlike the Government, the Labour party has a clear principle to guide it when it assesses the criteria for and practicalities of entry into a single currency. We must get the circumstances right, and that is

773
what is important for us. Labour will take a hard-headed, businesslike view of the costs and benefits of a single currency. Wrongly approached, a single currency could damage the British economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cash: What a sham.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not like what he is listening to, he can go outside and have a rest. In the Chamber, hon. Members will listen to any contribution from any hon. Member. Those who do not like it can go elsewhere.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should not have this catcall of "Give way." The hon. Gentleman has told the House that he will give way a little later. I suggest that hon. Members wait until that point.
Mr. O'Brien: Labour's criteria for judging the issue are clear. We believe that convergence of the real economic performance of member states is a vital precondition of economic and monetary union. Convergence must be based on improved levels of growth, jobs and productivity, and not just on monetary objectives alone. That is why we have long argued that the Maastricht convergence criteria need to be applied flexibly and that real economic convergence is of primary importance.
Labour also believes that, on entry, we should be confident that British industry will be able to compete effectively in a single currency. Further, Labour wants the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers to be developed as the political counterpart of the proposed European central bank to give the public a voice in shaping economic policies.
We also say that the move towards a single currency must be based on the consent of the British people, whether that consent be given by referendum or by general election. What is necessary is to ensure that popular consent is present. A referendum is one means of obtaining consent, but it is not a substitute for government. The Government must lead, and they must have a principled view on that issue. The Government lack a view and clear principles on that issue and, as a result of the divisions in the Government, they are becoming isolated and marginalised in Europe.
Labour's first commitment in Europe is to jobs for our people. We back the Swedish proposal to write into the Maastricht treaty a clearer commitment to full employment. Labour's vision is not of a Europe just for bureaucrats or politicians. Our view is of a Europe that is a community for ordinary people. We want workers to have better rights at work., and that is why we will sign the social chapter and join our European partners in introducing a minimum wage. We are proud of that
774
policy. We want the unemployed to have jobs, and that is why we put economic convergence before monetary criteria for joining the EMU.
Labour has a clear vision of the sort of Europe that we want to create. We oppose any unitary, federalist or centralised European state. We seek co-operation between member states in a common enterprise. We want power decentralised through subsidiarity, and we reject the idea that the European Union is a threat to our culture, language or character.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. O'Brien: We have a firm belief that Britain will not only hold its own in the European Union—
Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You assured us a few minutes ago that, as a consequence of a pledge given earlier by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), he would give way. He is obviously approaching the end of his speech and he has not yet honoured that pledge. Do you think that you could encourage him to give way at least once?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not assure anyone that there was any promise of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) giving way. I said that the hon. Gentleman might give way later. It is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman whether he chooses to give way, and to whom.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I invite the hon. Gentleman to give way just once.
Mr. O'Brien: I gave way to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but as the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) is so persistent, and I am generous, I will give way to him.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am most grateful. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting speech and he said that the Labour party was in favour, in principle, of economic and monetary union, but had many difficulties about the practicalities. He went on to spell out some of those difficulties. It is perfectly clear from what he said that those difficulties could be overcome only if the Maastricht treaty was substantially renegotiated. Is he saying that a future Labour Government would seek to renegotiate substantially that treaty?
Mr. O'Brien: Our position relates to the criteria on which we will judge moving forward on European economic and monetary union. The hon. Gentleman should heed the following words:
"There is no more important issue facing the European Community than the path we choose towards economic and monetary union. We are all committed to this goal."
That is what the Prime Minister said. The hon. Member for East Lindsey should also take note of the following words:
"No truly unified market can exist without a single currency. A close association of monetary policies will be needed if the single market itself is not to be put at risk."

775
That is what the Deputy Prime Minister said. Is that Conservative policy? Hon. Members may shake their heads, so let me put five clear questions to the Government and the Paymaster General, which he can consider in the White Paper that he is trying to put together.
First, do the Government agree with the Chancellor, who said that a single currency is not
"a threat to the nation state"?
Secondly, do they think, like the Deputy Prime Minister, that a single market needs a single currency? Thirdly, can they say whether, in the unlikely event of them being re-elected, a single currency will be a possibility in the next Parliament, given that the economic conditions are right? Fourthly, if the economic conditions were right, would they in principle be in favour of persuading the country that it was right to join a single currency? Fifthly, are they prepared to agree with the following statement:
"Some observers hope—and others fear—that economic and monetary union as set out in the Maastricht Treaty will be a step in the direction of a federal Europe … I believe that such … fears are unrealistic."
Do they agree with that statement by the Prime Minister? I do not think they do. I do not think that they know what they want. I do not think they know where they are going.
The country needs principle and direction. It will get it from a Labour Government, and it will not get it until we have one.
11.32 pm
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has asked me five questions. I will answer all of them if he will give me a clear answer to any one of them in return. As those on the Opposition Front Bench are in the biggest muddle about their approach to economic and monetary union, I will instead endeavour to answer the points raised earlier in the debate.
All we had from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was a Budget speech, which he read out at great speed, interlaced with some highly dubious international comparisons. Any responsible international comparisons use dates that are comparable in the economic cycle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said. If one takes the years 1981 to 1993, a complete economic cycle, the United Kingdom grew almost as fast as Germany and faster than France, Italy and the European Union average.
My main purpose in the few minutes remaining to me is to endeavour to answer the points raised. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked a few questions that have been echoed elsewhere in the House. In particular, he asked whether the information that we are providing to the European Commission could be used against us to require policy changes. He asked whether the fact that European economic policy is a matter of concern between member states imposes an obligation on us.
For many years, the economic policies of the constituent parts of the common market—now the single market—were a matter of concern. That concern dates back to the days when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Labour Government. Indeed, a council decision of 1974 provided a mechanism to strengthen economic convergence, and it has been developed over the years.
776
In fact, the Single European Act added an article with respect to economic and monetary co-operation. In turn, that led to the multilateral surveillance arrangements, about which I think the right hon. Gentleman was complaining. It is true that these can, and do, result in recommendations from the Council of Ministers to the United Kingdom. If my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) objects to that, I am afraid that I cannot meet his objection.
However, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the recommendations do not tie the Government, as is made clear in the treaty. Article 189 of the treaty states:
"Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force."
That is an important distinction. Of course, that is true only of stage 2 of the economic and monetary union. It is also true that if we were to move to stage 3, the recommendations become binding in the way that they are set out in the treaty.
Mr. Shore: With respect, I believe that there is a distinction which the hon. Gentleman has not got quite right. It is true that severe penalties could be imposed upon us in stage 3 if we break the rules of the Community. In stage 2, there is provision for the Commission and the Council to recommend by a qualified majority vote to take a number of actions which could be to the disadvantage of the member states, particularly the United Kingdom. For example, they could make it plain that they condemn different aspects of Government policy, when they know very well what effect that would have on the international financial markets.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: These communications have not exceeded that status of a recommendation, and as such they are not binding upon us. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to such a recommendation, which related to the excessive deficit procedure, and which was received in July of last year. We can accept the recommendation because it simply stated that the United Kingdom should adhere firmly to its current budgetary policies. The council also took note of the policy of strict control of public expenditure and stressed that this should continue to be implemented. These recommendations are not binding, but they are to be welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) complained about the rigour with which the convergence criteria were being applied, and the damage which he said was being caused to the economies of Germany and France. He also complained about the laxity with which the criteria were being applied and interpreted elsewhere. Indeed, he would not have been pleased to hear from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) that the Labour party believes in a lax and liberal interpretation of those criteria.
The main point I wish to make is that the four listed criteria—inflation, long-term interest rates, deficits and exchange rate stability—are set out in the treaty. The treaty also refers to other factors which may be taken into account, such as the balance of payments, the development of unit labour costs and the development of a single market.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only three minutes in which to complete the debate.

777
There is an important point there because Conservative Members know that labour market flexibility, which is not specifically laid out in the treaty but is a subject of growing interest to those who debate those matters, is a crucial ingredient in, and possibly an impediment to, the introduction of stage 3 of economic and monetary union.
In a single currency zone, the adjustment mechanisms of exchange rates and interest rates are removed or would be given up by the participating member states, so the strain of adjusting for different rates of development in different parts of the single currency area must be taken by the wage-price mechanism unless there are to be compensatory flows of structural funds, which undoubtedly would be beyond the scope of the present European budget to finance. It follows that the flexibility and responsiveness of markets is an important element in any decision that might be taken by this or any other Government whether to move to stage 3 of EMU.
The crucial fact to bear in mind is that we have an opt-out. We are not committed; we can watch the development and the unfolding of the implications without being committed.
Mr. John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do respect my right hon. Friend's interest in the subject, but he must forgive me because of shortage of time.
I shall try to reply briefly to a couple of arguments made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). There is nothing sinister about the fact that the general Government financial deficit is included in the Red Book. That is a widely used international measure, and it is included not simply at the behest of the European Commission. As regards the outturn for 1995, it is true that our accounting is on a financial year basis and most of the European Union accounts on a calendar year basis. In fact the figures are available, and the one that the right hon. Gentleman seeks will be published by the Central Statistical Office next month.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the fact that we are not members of the exchange rate mechanism alters the criteria that we or any other member state must fulfil to move to stage 3. It is true that the exchange rate mechanism no longer operates in the way foreseen when the treaty—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents).
The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 11.

Division No. 51]

[11.42 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Amess, David

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

778

Baldry, Tony

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Boswell, Tim

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Legg, Barry

Bowis, John

Lidington, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Luff, Peter

Bright, Sir Graham

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

MacKay, Andrew

Browning, Mrs Angela

McLoughlin, Patrick

Budgen, Nicholas

Malone, Gerald

Burt, Alistair

Marland, Paul

Cash, William

Merchant, Piers

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Neubert, Sir Michael

Congdon, David

Ottaway, Richard

Conway, Derek

Paice, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Cran, James

Spencer, Sir Derek

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Spink, Dr Robert

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Sproat, Iain

Devlin, Tim

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Duncan, Alan

Sweeney, Walter

Elletson, Harold

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Thomason, Roy

Fabricant, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

French, Douglas

Waller, Gary

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Watts, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Wells, Bowen

Harris, David

Whittingdale, John

Hawkins, Nick

Widdecombe, Ann

Heald, Oliver

Wolfson, Mark

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Wood, Timothy

Hendry, Charles

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Mr. Michael Bates and

Jenkin, Bernard

Mr. Gary Streeter.

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

NOES

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Chidgey, David

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Tellers for the Noes:

Rendel, David

Mr. Nigel Spearing and

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Finance Statement and Budget Report 1996–97 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

TRADING SCHEMES BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trading Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Fair Trading Act 1973.—[Mr. Wood.]

M5 Widening (Whittington)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
11.53 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this subject, which is of great importance to my constituents, who are directly affected by it.
Since its widening near junction 7, noise levels from the M5 have often been intolerable at the village of Whittington. They are also a problem for other Worcestershire residents. For example, at Harvington, similar noise problems have resulted from the construction of a bypass. I am aware of the keen interest of my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) in that issue. The House may understand why I am closely following events at Harvington.
The systematic failure of the Highways Agency to act on the issue of noise, which is apparent at Whittington and Harvington, must not be repeated in other road-building projects. We need new roads and road widening, but the case for those roads will be weakened if events at Whittington and Harvington are repeated.
Often it is only complaints that come to the Floor of the House, so I shall begin with tributes. My first is to the Minister and to those in his private office for their close personal interest in the matter. I am sorry that the Minister's only reward is to be dragged here tonight at this uncivilised hour, but that is politics.
Secondly, I pay tribute to the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, who recently visited Whittington to see the situation for himself. As luck would have it, he chose the quietest day for about a year. Thirdly, to be fair to the Highways Agency, I pay tribute to it for the spectacular success of the widening project, the side effects of which we are discussing tonight.
What genius originally designed the M5 through my constituency as a two-lane highway, I do not know. Holidaymakers and business traffic from the south-west to the midlands and the north, and vice versa, came to regard the two-lane section as one of the worst experiences known to drivers in the United Kingdom. Increasing congestion and tailbacks made the widening project essential. It has transformed journeys for the better. It was completed ahead of schedule and significantly below budget—an important point for my hon. Friend the Minister to consider. The congestion that obtained on the M5 deterred use of the motorway, as other routes were found by those who had to make the journey from north to south, and reduced speeds. It is logical that widening has increased use and speeds, with serious consequences for my constituents who live near the motorway.
Tonight I intend to concentrate on issues for the Highways Agency, not the issue of cash compensation for the loss in property values that resulted from the noise, which is a matter for the district valuers. However, it is fair to record in parenthesis the dissatisfaction of the people of Whittington with the approach of the district valuer. He seems—I realise that this may be an uncharitable interpretation—to have sought to pick off those whom he could get to settle for low sums first and
780
use them as precedents for future settlements. I believe that some people have settled for ridiculously low sums as a result.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that aspect in mind. The many tenants of the local housing association who live in Whittington are, of course, not eligible for compensation and neither cash compensation nor secondary glazing can insulate a garden or restore the semi-rural calm of a village.
Tonight I want to do two things—to describe what has happened and to seek an undertaking from the Minister to settle the facts of the resultant noise increase by persuading the Highways Agency to measure the noise over a sustained period. We shall then know who is right and who is wrong. To me, it is a simple matter of common sense that the villagers are right, but I accept the need for proof, which the agency has so far been unable or unwilling to provide.
I have been able to pursue this case only because two particularly diligent residents have procured and used their own noise meters, which have consistently proved the Highways Agency wrong. The story of the noise impact on Whittington village is a catalogue of errors and omissions by the agency. For example—there are shades here of British Rail's handling of the early channel tunnel rail link plans—when it did its initial work, the agency did not include on its plans houses that were already built.
The motorway was widened using the so-called parallel widening technique. The need for some noise mitigation measures was always recognised, and the original plans allowed for an intermittent small mound on the old carriageway, which was made redundant as a result of the widening technique used.
The calculation method used by the agency led its noise consultants to conclude that the measures would dramatically reduce noise levels at Whittington from the pre-widening level of about 60 dB to a post-widening level of about 56 dB. In a letter to one of my constituents written on 8 July 1992, during the construction of the widened motorway, the agency stated:
"when the motorway widening is complete the traffic will be further away from your property and a noise reduction mound will have been built along the end of Berkeley Close. Although the amount of traffic will increase, the effect will be a reduction in noise".
How wrong can one be?
During construction, residents expressed concerns about the likely effectiveness of the proposed measures and the agency agreed to use spare rubble to make the proposed intermittent mound, into a continuous one from the A422 to 80 m from the so-called Church farm overbridge, where there was no room for a mound as there was no redundant carriageway.
In fact, a letter from the agency dated 30 September 1993 suggested that this extension was undertaken at the request of the Department. If so, I am grateful for its early interest. It also said—this is an important point to bear in mind in my later remarks—that any further extension
"would be too remote … to make any further difference to noise levels."
Thousands of tons of rubble were generated by the works, which sadly were often dumped where there were no houses to protect. That could all too easily have been used to protect Whittington with a much more effective bund at little or no extra cost, but that opportunity has

781
been lost. As I drove along the widened section of the M5 on Saturday night, I looked at what seemed to be much higher bunds protecting much smaller communities than Whittington.
After the opening of the widened motorway, noise levels in Whittington went up sharply. The response of the agency was simply to refuse to believe my constituents. The 80 m gap that it said would be left was in fact 200 m—a huge miscalculation that the agency could not explain.
Months of lobbying got the agency to come back to measure noise levels for the first time. That was finally agreed at a site meeting on 17 December 1993. Representatives of the agency who came to the meeting were visibly surprised by the level of noise in Whittington. The meeting enabled us to settle a number of important misunderstandings—for example, that the road is in a cutting at this point, which it is not. The agency also accepted that the road surface was considerably higher than it was pre-widening, which it had consistently denied. In my view, that increased height is a major factor in the increased noise levels.
The promised monitoring took place between 20 and 26 January 1994. It happened only because two of my constituents—Barrie Redding and Stuart Cottam—borrowed a crude noise meter and did the agency's work for it, hanging from bedroom windows and touring the village with the meter.
Over a week—once again, sadly and inevitably, a quiet week because of weather conditions—the metering survey was conducted. The Highways Agency at last accepted that its original predictions were grossly inaccurate. One official said: "Off the record, we made a horrible mistake." That mistake was discovered only because of the diligence and perseverance of my constituents.
A decision was rightly taken to mitigate retrospectively rather than to undertake wholesale insulation of the village. Obviously, that was the preferable solution. Gardens cannot be insulated. Reducing the noise levels overall is the preferred solution for my constituents.
On 15 April 1994, the agency wrote:
"The result of these calculations is that in the Church Lane-Berkeley Close area noise levels can be returned to their pre-widening levels (or better) by the erection of a 3 metre high noise fence for 250 metres northwards from the overbridge and this is what we now propose."
At this point, the agency formally apologised for its errors, and gave this undertaking:
"We shall seek to rectify the situation as indicated as soon as we can."
The House will understand the fury of local residents when they read in the Worcester Evening News on Tuesday 6 February, when news of this Adjournment debate became public, that a spokesman for the Highways Agency had said to that newspaper the previous day:
"We remain to be convinced the noise levels are worse than prewidening. The motorway was widened away from the village."
From what I have already said, the House will know that the agency has conceded that noise levels are higher than pre-widening, both in writing and at private meetings. It would not have done the inadequate things it has done if that spokesman was right.
782
In a letter to me on 16 June 1995, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
"The Highways Agency has accepted that the original noise calculations were an under-estimate".
What on earth, or who on earth, did that spokesman consult? How incompetent can an agency get? It has formally conceded that noise levels are at or around 66 dB, and that pre-widening levels were around 60 dB. My constituents maintain, with good evidence, that noise levels are actually much higher. Is it any wonder that my constituents are so cynical about the agency's intentions?
The agency has since proposed merely to fill in the gap with fencing at the point where it originally said that there was no room for a mound and that a mound would have no effect. It said that that would reduce noise levels in the whole village to pre-widening levels or better. That conflicting advice came from the same individual in the agency. Confronting the agency with its conflicting advice led it to accept that the new proposal would be inadequate. Residents of Whittington came to the conclusion that the agency was trying to fob them off, and who can blame them?
Eventually, the agency settled on a further proposal: an extra fence on top of the 2 m bund and the 3 m noise fence in the gap. That measure was installed only after much and totally unacceptable delay. The reasons for the delay are well documented, and as they are not central to the debate I shall not labour them. The Minister will understand, however, how the delay has infuriated my constituents.
Although the villagers felt that the new proposal would also be inadequate, the agency said that it would assess its efficacy. At a meeting, the director of the motorway widening unit promised that more work would be done if the fence was ineffective. My hon. Friend the Minister said in a letter to me on 23 August:
"The best way forward now is for the Agency to erect the additional noise fence and wait to see its efficacy."
On 18 October 1994, almost a year earlier, Mr. Oddy of the Highways Agency, had written:
"Let us get the mitigation in place"—
it took a year to get it in place—
"if there is doubt after that about the extent of immediate and future noise reduction we can consider repeating the noise metering we did before, and further mitigation if that seems justified"
Only one inference can be drawn from those statements: if the measures are inadequate, more will be done.
The villagers wanted a 5 m fence throughout, but were restricted to 3 m because of the agency's concern not to spoil their view. If only the agency were as concerned about noise as it is about my constituents' view. The fence has finally been erected, many months late. Not surprisingly, there has been no reduction in noise levels.
The final straw is the new refusal of the agency to honour previous commitments to monitor the situation, which were clearly implied in meetings and ministerial correspondence. On 1 November, my hon. Friend the Minister, presumably on the advice of the agency, wrote to me to say that the result of the work would not be monitored. He said:
"The Noise Insulation regulations require that predicted noise levels are assessed (by calculation) … not by noise measurement."
In other words, not only will previous commitments not be honoured by the agency, but the methodology that will settle the whole matter is the one that failed to predict

783
noise levels accurately in the first place. Since the amelioration measures were put in place, further noise measurements with more sophisticated noise meters conducted by my constituents have found very high noise levels—often reaching 70 dB and higher.
I recently attended a special meeting at Whittington village hall organised by the parish council, which was attended by 50 people from 40 households. Many apologies for absence were made. As the total number of residents on the electoral roll is 427, that is an extremely high turnout for a Saturday morning. The summary of a note read to that meeting says it all:
"we are the victims of a horrible mistake by the highways agency. They have now had two attempts at effective noise mitigation measures and have failed miserably both times."
My constituents are no longer prepared to settle for the promise of further amelioration measures. They require—I hope that the Minister can promise it in his speech—a sustained measurement of the noise levels in their village to prove who is right and who is wrong. A return to pre-widening noise levels across their village remains their ambition, and rightly so. All I ask is for a repeat of the January 1994 exercise, but for rather more than a week. I would suggest a month, and in varying meteorological conditions—relating to both wind direction and atmospheric pressure. After all my constituents have been through, I also hope that there will a reasonably generous interpretation of any results.
I hope that the agency will then act on the spirit of the findings and not necessarily the letter of the law. Involving in advance the parish council with the methodology will be crucial to its eventual acceptance by my constituents. They want to know that the chances of the monitoring being done during a freak quiet period are minimised.
My hon. Friend the Minister and his office have been consistently helpful to me throughout the whole sorry episode. I very much regret the fact that he has been called to the House tonight to answer for the errors of the Highways Agency, which has failed completely in its duty to my constituents. Such failures will lead to more resistance to bypasses and to widening schemes. It is essential to sort out this mess once and for all.
12.9 am
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank, or at least congratulate, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) for raising this issue and for his kind words about my private office. I am aware that my hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in the matter since the widening of the M5 was completed. He has with his usual diligence taken up the case on behalf of his constituents at Whittington.
His constituents are concerned that the volume of traffic noise has increased since the completion of the widening of the M5 between Warndon and Strensham in 1993. I sympathise greatly with the concerns of local people because I know that excessive traffic noise can be intrusive, although it has to be said that we can never fully eliminate it.
The motorway was widened from two to three lanes between 1991 and 1993 to relieve congestion and enhance road safety along the 13-mile section between Warndon and Strensham. My hon. Friend confirmed how necessary that widening was. As he explained, the widening was
784
carried out by the innovative parallel widening method, whereby one completely new carriageway is built without affecting traffic on the existing motorway. The original carriageway is then converted into the other carriageway of the newly widened motorway. As he said, the new carriageway was built further away from the village, so that, under normal circumstances and assumptions, one would have expected some reduction in noise intrusion. Part of the old carriageway was broken up for an earth mound to be constructed on it.
There was wide consultation with members of the public before the scheme was implemented, and a public inquiry was held. Objections and representations were considered fully and a number of measures were incorporated into the scheme to try to reduce its impact on the environment. We took particular care to try to reduce the impact from noise on the communities by providing earth mounds and fencing and by offering noise insulation. The objective was to limit noise levels as far as possible to the level prevailing before the widening took place, despite the growth in traffic.
To help assess the need for those measures, our consultants calculate the noise likely to be generated by traffic using the widened motorway at a future date, usually 15 years after the road has been opened. This was done by taking the known traffic levels and increasing them to take account of forecast traffic growth. Account is taken of topography and any other barriers to sound that would reduce the noise before calculating the level at, for example, a house close to the road.
The detailed methods used in the calculations are laid down by the noise insulation regulations. Those calculations showed that noise from the new road would be around 56 to 57 dB in the design year of 2008 at the facades of buildings in Church lane, assuming that the mound was built. However, I acknowledge that there was inconsistency in the figures, although the broad range was considered a reasonable indicator. Based on those figures, we provided various noise mounds and fencing, including a noise mound to screen properties in Church lane and Berkeley close near Whittington. We also offered noise insulation to 13 properties in the Whittington area, although some of the offers were declined.
Following the opening of the widened motorway, a number of complaints were made by people living nearby. Officials from the Highways Agency visited the area, and it was clear to them that the actual noise levels were higher than expected. They therefore arranged for measurements to be made, which confirmed that the noise levels were, at around 63 to 66 dB, substantially higher than those calculated, and were expected to increase further by about 1.5 dB 15 years after opening.
It became clear that mistakes had been made in calculating the noise impact of the scheme. Clearly, I regret that. We are pursuing that matter separately with our consultants. Given those new facts, we agreed to increase the length and height of the screening for Church lane and Berkeley close to provide a barrier aimed at screening the properties in Church lane against noise.
The screen now runs for a distance of 733 yd northwards from Church farm overbridge along the motorway. Through a combination of fencing and earth mounding, it is now 3 m—or, as I prefer to say, almost 10 ft—high. The residents had asked for a 6 m, or 19.5 ft, high fence, but I am afraid we could not agree to this,

785
because the cost would have been disproportionate to the benefits that it was predicted to provide. It did take a while to put the work in hand, partly because of the need to obtain planning permission. The work itself was not straightforward. There were delays in obtaining materials of the specified quality. Nevertheless, the work was eventually completed in accordance with the design.
I know that the residents of Whittington remain sceptical about the effects of the noise mitigation measures, in particular the noise fence already provided. In view of the history, one can quite understand why they should be so sceptical. They maintain that, if we had had more accurate noise assessments before construction, we would have increased the height of the bund. At this stage, that has to be regarded as speculative.
However, in view of their continuing concerns, I have—as my hon. Friend has asked in the debate—told
786
the Highways Agency to appoint a firm of independent consultants to carry out a fresh noise survey and to take further noise measurements over a period of four to five weeks. My hon. Friend's request for a one-month survey will be met by that. The survey will establish what the actual noise levels are, and will also honour the undertakings that he said were given previously.
I recognise that the local residents are genuinely concerned that we have not done enough, but I hope that the further work will prove to my hon. Friend and his constituents that we take this seriously. Once the survey results are available, we shall look at all the issues again and decide whether any further action is justified. We shall, of course, let him and the local residents know the outcome of the further surveys.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ordtech
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what documents were given by the Law Officers' Departments to(a) the prosecuting authorities, (b) the defence counsel and (c) the judge in the recent appeal case of Ordtech; and if he will make a statement. [14206]

  The Attorney-General
  The Ordtech case is a matter falling within the scope of Sir Richard Scott's inquiry. The Government do not propose to comment on such matters until it has considered Sir Richard Scott's report.

ENVIRONMENT

  House Renovation Grant
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) pensioner households, (b) men aged over 65 years and (c) women aged over 60 years received a house renovation grant in the latest year for which figures are available. [13783]

  Mr. Curry
  The Department does not routinely collect information on the age and sex of applicants whose grant application is approved by local housing authorities. Reseach commissioned by the Department estimated, from data collected during 1990–91, the percentage of approvals in England for each type of grant under the current renovation grant system where the applicant was aged 60 or over. Applying these percentages would provide the following estimates for England in 1994, the last calendar year for which data are available:

  Estimates of approvals to applicants aged 60 or over

  Type of grant

  All approvals (mandatory and discretionary) Number (000s)

  Percentage

  Number (000s)

  Renovation

  40.3

  48

  19.3

  Disabled facilties

  23.7

  71

  16.8

  Minor works assistance

  32.5

  88

  28.6

  Research data are not available for common parts grants and HMSO grants; the latter is provided to landlords only.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pensioner households, men aged over 65 years and women aged over 60 years are currently on the house renovation grant waiting list. [13784]
  400
  Mr. Curry
  No information is available. The Department does not routinely collect information from local authorities on the status of grant inquiries received by it.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to take account of care for the disabled when deciding the revenue support grant settlement for local authorities; and what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of meeting the specific needs of disabled people. [14204]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Funding of services for disabled people is provided for through the standard spending assessments for personal social services. In 1993–94, based on figures provided by local authorities, the net cost of providing social services for physically disabled adults aged under 65 was some £350 million. Expenditure on services for disabled children or elderly people cannot be extracted from the figures available: 1993–94 is the latest year for which we have outturn figures.

  London Borough of Brent
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether the London borough of Brent's procurement of a computer system by its social services department complied with EC procurement rules. [14099]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. The London borough of Brent is responsible for making its own decisions in awarding public procurement contracts.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has given to the London borough of Brent as to competition policy. [14100]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has issued guidance about compulsory competitive tendering to all local authorities specifically in Department circular 10/93.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department has given to local authorities as to EEC Council directive 77/62/EEC, as amended by directive 88/295/EEC; and if he will list the local authorities to which such advice was given. [14102]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department gave advice to all local authorities in circular 46/78 about the provisions of directive 77/62/EEC. This circular was overtaken by circular 6/89, which gave similar advice about directive 88/295/EEC. Further advice was given to authorities in circular 7/90 about avoiding national discrimination in tender documents for supply contracts. These circulars were made available to county councils and district councils in England, London borough councils, the council of the Isle of Scilly, and the City of London.

  British Coal Pumping Station, Ushaw Moor
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of environmental problems caused by the closure of
  401
  the British Coal pumping station at Ushaw Moor, Durham. [14515]

  Mr. Clappison
  Ushaw Moor pumping station, now under the control of the Coal Authority, has not been closed. Pumping was temporarily suspended in October 1995, as part of a controlled test programme designed to obtain more information about groundwater flows in the area, and has since been resumed. The National Rivers Authority is monitoring the situation, and I understand that no environmental problems have been identified.

  Environmental Services Association
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had and what plans he has to discuss with the Environmental Services Association its planning guidelines for waste management facilities. [14834]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My officials discussed the planning guidelines for waste management facilities produced by the Environmental Services Association with representatives of the association on Friday 26 January 1996. They also feature in on-going discussions between the Department and the association and others in connection with the Department's preparation of a planning policy guidance note on waste.

  Waste Management
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations which have responded to the consultation paper on the development of a national waste classification scheme. [14494]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has received more than 200 responses to the consultation paper. I am therefore writing to the hon. Member with a list of those organisations that have responded to date.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the final system for the classification of waste substances. [14495]

  Mr. Clappison
  The precise timing of the publication of the final waste classification scheme will depend on the responses to the second stage, which we are assessing. We are, in any case, committed to a third stage of consultation, which we expect to issue after the responses to this stage have been taken into account.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations charged with the duty of determining the classification of different types of waste; and if there will be an appeals mechanism in respect of waste classification. [14496]

  Mr. Clappison
  No organisation has been charged with the duty of determining the classification of different types of waste. However, the consultation paper issued on 15 December 1995 invited comments on the possibility of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 being amended to provide that waste is identified on the duty of care transfer note by reference to the classification system. The responsibility under the duty of care rests with the parties completing the transfer note and an appeals mechanism is not required.

  Severe Weather Conditions
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra assistance his Department has the power to offer to Copeland borough council and Cumbria county council following the recent severe weather conditions. [14816]

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend has powers to establish a Bellwin scheme, under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to provide emergency financial assistance to local authorities. Such schemes are established and resources provided where, as a consequence of an emergency, an authority would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities.

  We have not, to date, received any request from either Copeland borough council or Cumbria county council for support under Bellwin for additional expenditure incurred as a consequence of the recent poor weather conditions. Were we to receive a request, we would, of course, consider it very carefully.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the review of the local government ombudsman service; and if he will make a statement. [15016]

  Mr. Curry
  The first stage of the review, in which the need for a local ombudsman service was examined, has been completed. On 30 November 1995, the reviewer— Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield—presented his report to my right hon. Friend and to the chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England, and today I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir Geoffrey has concluded that the present centralised investigation and review processes of the CLA would not be able to handle effectively the increasing volume of complaints, which he foresaw with the growth of citizens' awareness of their rights and remedies. He has proposed, therefore, a new complaints regime, under which each local authority would be statutorily obliged to operate its own local complaints system, involving both internal review and an external reviewer or adjudicator. The role of any independent, central body, such as the CLA, would be limited to the validation and monitoring of each local authority's system; such a body would not have any role to investigate specific complaints.

  We have carefully considered Sir Geoffrey's report and the CLA's representations on it. We recognise the importance of all local authorities having their own effective local complaints systems, although we are not persuaded of the need to seek legislation imposing a new statutory duty on local authorities to establish and maintain such systems. Nor do we believe that the case has been made that there is at present no continued need for the CLA's role as a wholly independent body to investigate complaints of maladministration.

  We have concluded, therefore, that we should proceed with the second stage of the review, which will focus particularly on the efficiency and effectiveness of the

  403
  CLA's procedures as an investigatory body. I have today asked Andrew Whetnall, a senior official in my Department, to undertake this stage of the review. I propose that he should be assisted by the advisory group, including representatives of the local authority associations and citizens' advice bureaux, which we established for the first stage of the review. In parallel, I am inviting comments from local authorities and all interested parties on the wider issues raised in the review's first stage. In the light of these comments and the findings of the review's second stage, we intend to take our decisions on the CLA's future.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the top 10 companies that have been leading beneficiaries of export credits backing arms sales since 1979. [14866]

  Mr. Nelson
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about commercial relations between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and individual companies unless the relevant parties have agreed to this.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the largest sum put up by Her Majesty's Government as a financial guarantee or collateral in respect of securing an arms deal; in what year; and with what country the deal was concerned. [14461]

  Mr. Lang
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose details of individual contracts unless the relevant parties have agreed to this. I am therefore unable to provide the information which the hon. Member requests.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy regarding the late payment of commercial debt. [14653]

  Mr. Page
  The Government recognise the problems that late payment can cause for smaller firms and are committed to tackling the issue. In the 1994 White Paper, "Competitiveness-Helping Business to Win", the Government announced a number of practical measures to tackle late payment, including support for the development, by business of a British standard on prompt payment, improvements to court procedures for debt recovery and a requirement for public companies to disclose their payment policies. In addition, we are helping small businesses to improve their cash-flow management.

  I also announced to the House on 11 January 1996, Official Report, columns 293, that I have agreed to look again at the arguments for statutory interest and will report the outcome in the summer.

  Rom Data Corporation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade between which dates Mr. Holmes was employed in 404
  the Department of Trade and Industry south-west regional office; and what was the nature of his work. [8924]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: While he was not an employee of the DTI south-west regional office, Mr. Kenneth Holmes advised it on accountancy and financial issues on an external consultancy basis between 5 February 1991 and 15 April 1995.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 335, when he expects to be able to report the findings of his Department's inquiries into the circumstances of the regional selective assistance for the Rom Data Corporation. [8924]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: No DTI south-west regional office employees or former employees are known to have subsequently acted as directors or been otherwise employed by the Rom Data Corporation. However, Mr. Kenneth Holmes, who advised the regional office on regional selective assistance applications on a consultancy basis, became a director and chairman of the Rom Data Corporation.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice was received by the Department of Trade and Industry south-west regional office from other DTI regional offices regarding Mr. John Dawson. [8926]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: None was sought or received.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects the small business ministerial group to meet; and how frequently and on what dates it is expected to meet in the coming year. [14583]

  Mr. Page
  The small business ministerial group will meet twice a year. The next meeting has been arranged for 1 July 1996.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the remit of his review of the small firms loan guarantee scheme. [14584]

  Mr. Page
  The review of the small firms loan guarantee scheme rules was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his November 1994 Budget statement with a view to making the scheme simpler and more attractive.

  Regional Supply Network
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what system of monitoring he intends to establish to discover what level of use the regional supply network has had from(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) all businesses (i) in each region and (ii) in total. [14585]

  Mr. Page
  A system of monitoring regional supply network usage has been in place since offices opened in April 1995. Quarterly monitoring information reports are obtained from each regional supply office. These include information on the number of businesses that ask the RSN to find suppliers, the number of suppliers who meet the requirements of purchasers and the number of businesses gaining contracts as a result of these inquiries. These
  405
  figures are collected for each region and collated as national totals. Information on the size of businesses using the RSN services is not collected.

  Trade Union Ballots
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount has been paid to date in 1995–96 for the carrying out of ballots by trade unions. [14542]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: During the financial year 1995–96, £831,938 has been authorised for payment to trade unions by the certification office by 31 January 1996 in respect of the statutory funds for trade union ballots scheme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Criminal Tribunals
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to introduce legislation to enable co-operation with the international criminal tribunals for(a) the former republic of Yugoslavia and (b) Rwanda; and if he will make a statement. [14308]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Legislation to enable the United Kingdom to surrender those indicted by the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda will be presented to the Privy Council shortly.

  The UK has been co-operating informally with the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We have made voluntary contributions of almost £450,000 to help fund the secondment of seven members of the police force and a military lawyer, and to buy computer and camera equipment. We have also provided a substantial quantity of information.

  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of UNRWA in the middle east peace process. [14554]

  Mr. Hanley
  We support UNRWA's valuable work the Palestinian refugees in the middle east and remain one of its largest donors. UNRWA has an important role to play in the context of a final settlement of the refugee issue.

  Bosnia (War Criminals)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers NATO troops in Bosnia have to arrest individuals suspected of war crimes. [14738]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The North Atlantic Council has authorised IFOR to detain any individuals indicted by the tribunal with whom it comes into contact in the execution of its assigned tasks, and to transfer them to the tribunal. However, it is not part of IFOR's mandate to search for these individuals.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions in the last 406
  three years officials have vetoed draft EU legislation on the grounds that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13652]

  Mr. David Davis
  The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for EC legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Ministers consider the United Kingdom's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

  European Courts
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost to public funds of the United Kingdom's participation in the work of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice over the past three years for which figures are available. [14007]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on 30 October 1995,Official Report, column 12, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 7 November 1995, Official Report, column 697.

  These provide costs to public funds relating to decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights over a two year period from October 1993 to October 1995. These costs include counsels' fees, costs and damages. Wider costs, if any, arising from a particular decision are a matter for the relevant departmental Minister.

  The cost to public funds in respect of ECHR judgments for which figures are available including the remaining periods—February to October 1993 and October 1995 to February 1996—is £484,018.90.

  On costs to pubic funds for European Court of Justice judgments, and European Court of Human Rights counsels' fees for the two periods above, I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Treaty of Rarotonga
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government intend to sign the protocols to the treaty of Rarotonga; and if he will make a statement. [14298]

  Mr. David Davis
  We announced in October last year that we would sign the relevant protocols to the treaty of Rarotonga in the first half of 1996. A firm date has yet to be fixed. But preparations are in hand and we expect to sign in the near future.

  Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the maximum number of warheads that the United States Government intend to deploy on each of their Trident D5 missiles to comply with the START II restrictions will affect the maximum number of warheads which the United Kingdom Government intend to deploy on each of their D5 missiles. [14291]

  Mr. David Davis
  No.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq in regard to the loss reported on 30 January by the International Atomic Energy Agency of a high technology furnace ordered by Iraq for use in a centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in 1990. [14855]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are not aware of any report form the IAEA relating to the loss of a high technology furnace ordered by Iraq for use in a centrifuge uranium enrichment plant.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those magistrates courts that have been closed in each county in England and Wales since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [14275]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Decisions to close magistrates courts are made by the local magistrates courts committee. The Lord Chancellor is involved only when there is an appeal by a local authority against a proposed closure. Information on magistrates court closures where there has not been an appeal is not collected centrally.

  Solicitors Complaints Bureau
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what recent assessment he has made of the(a) effectiveness, (b) speed of delivery and (c) independence of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau; [13899]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the balance between solicitors, officials and lay people on an adjudication committee of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau; and if he will make it his policy to increase the number of lay people. [13892]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. These are matters for the Law Society, which has responsibility for maintaining standards of conduct among solicitors.

  However, the Government have established the legal services ombudsman to provide an independent check on the complaints handling procedures of the General Council of the Bar and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, as well as the SCB. Both in his reports in individual cases, and in his annual report to the Lord Chancellor, which is laid before Parliament, the ombudsman highlights areas of concern and makes recommendations to the professional bodies for improvements in their arrangements for investigating complaints.

  Legal Ombudsman
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases the legal ombudsman has(a) accepted and (b) finalised in 1995; and what is the average time between (a) and (b). [13889]
  408
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In 1995 the legal services ombudsman(a) accepted 1,436 cases for investigation and (b) finalised and issued reports in 1,041 cases. The average time between (a) and (b) in 1995 was six and a half months.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals by port-of-entry applicants for asylum were determined; and how many of such appeals succeeded wholly or in part in the last two years for which figures are available. [14490]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Over half the 2,440 appeals determined by adjudicators in 1994 had been made by people who had applied for asylum at ports of entry. Table 8.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 15/95, provides the available information on the outcomes of asylum appeals to adjudicators and the tribunal. A copy of this publication is available in the Library. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments since 1987, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14088]

  Mr. Howard
  There are no records of spare computer capacity in my Department having been sold to other Departments since 1987.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14031]

  Mr. Howard
  The following manuals and guidance are now made public:

  Manuals and guidance issued by the United Kingdom Passport Agency.

  The Immigration Service complaints handbook.

  The Immigration and Nationality Department complaints staff instruction.

  74 handouts issued to trainee immigration officers.

  Home Office Criminal Statistics:

  Volume I Counting Rules for Notifiable Offence.

  Volume II Codes for classifying the offence.

  Manual on achieving the transfer of data on court ppearances direct from the magistrates' courts computer systems to the Home Office.

  Guidance for magistrates' court staff on how to produce accurate statistics for the Home Office from the ICL, EQUIS and UNISYS systems. Data interchange user guides for ICL, EQUIS and UNISYS systems.
  Crown Court Statistics Data Interchange Guide.
  The National Strategy for Police Information Systems.

  409
  Fire Service College:

  Safety Management Policy.

  Environment Policy.

  Quality Policy.

  Training Performance Indicators.

  Prison Service Standing Order 5—communications.
  Instructions to Governors 82/94—Victim Helpline.
  Procedures for Open Government.

  Guidance setting out the circumstances in which requests for privileged access to closed records may be granted.

  It is not possible to list the administrative manuals and internal guidance used in the Home Office which remain private, because there is no comprehensive list of these. However work is in hand in assessing whether more of this material could be made available in future. Current plans include the release of new guidance now being prepared on applying the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for such job. [13824]

  Mr. Howard
  The following information relates to those posts advertised in the Home Office, including its agencies, other than posts advertised by prison establishments. Information about the latter could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Grade

  Number of posts

  Applications

  Grade 5

  1

  152

  Grade 7

  1

  17

  Grade 7

  1

  31

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  20

  Higher Executive Officer

  3

  62

  Executive Officer

  1

  75

  Administrative Officer

  15

  99

  Administrative Assistant

  40

  175

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  23

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  45

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  10

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  10

  Administrative Assistant (casuals)

  269

  1,058

  Typist

  1

  4

  Typist

  2

  6

  Chaplain

  1

  2

  Chaplains

  1

  11

  Catering Manager

  1

  9

  Medical Officer

  1

  7

  Medical Officer

  1

  9

  Support Grade

  1

  25

  Support Grade

  2

  18

  Scientists

  3

  83

  Stores Attendant

  2

  33

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft, EC legislation on the 410
  grounds that a fiche d'imapct had not been correctly prepared. [13651]

  Mr. Howard
  The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for European Community legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Ministers consider the United Kingdom's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the relative cost, at the latest estimate, of keeping a prisoner in(a) secure prison establishments and (b) open prisons and related establishments. [14002]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alan Walker to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the relative cost of keeping a prisoner in (a) secure prison establishments and (b) open prisons and related establishments.
  In 1994–95 the average annual net operating cost per place for open establishments was £13,662, and for secure establishments it was £20,813.

  "Haven't They Suffered Enough"
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what aid and assistance his Department proposes to give to the Refugee Council's appeal, "Haven't They Suffered Enough"; and if he will make a statement. [14244]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have no plans to provide assistance to the appeal.

  Asylum Seekers and Refugees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department issues on provision of accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees(a) to landlords and (b) to other bodies; and if he will make a statement. [14246]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No guidelines on such matters are issued by the Home Office.

  Wood Green Crown Court
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received regarding the quality of meals provided by Securicor at Wood Green Crown court; and what response his Department has made. [14582]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  411
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Barabara Roche, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the provision of meals by Securicor Custodial Services at Wood Green Crown Court.
  No representations have been received about the quality of meals provided by Securicor at Wood Green Crown Court.

  Duchess of York
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times during each of the last three years police officers have travelled abroad as part of their duties in connection with the Duchess of York and her family. [14813]

  Mr. Howard
  For security reasons, it is not the practice to give details of the measures taken to protect the Duchess of York and her family.

  Home Country Reports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of all home country reports currently available; if he will undertake to place in the Library all such reports relating to countries designated as safe; and if he will place in the Library the home country report on Pakistan used by a Home Office presenting officer at an immigration appeal hearing in Leeds during 1995. [14120]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 8 February 1996]: Two country assessments—on Ghana and on Nigeria—have been completed and have been placed in the Library. Assessments on other countries, including Pakistan, are in preparation and will also be placed in the Library when they have been finalised.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask Lord Justice Scott to disclose the names of journalists to be briefed and the dates of briefings in relation to the forthcoming report and the progress of the inquiry. [14269]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Rail Privatisation (Directorships)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he is giving retiring members or former members of his Administration or hon. Members in respect of their accepting directorships in privatised rail companies. [14144]

  The Prime Minister
  From the start of the current session of Parliament, Ministers who leave office will be expected to ask the independent advisory committee on business appointments about any appointment outside Government which they wish to take up within two years.

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the average of the pay increases recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body in the past year. [14617]
  412
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on 8 February,Official Report, columns 294–96.

TRANSPORT

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria are used when deciding if crash barriers should be installed. [13033]

  Mr. Watts
  The criteria for the provision of crash barriers are contained in the Highway Agency's departmental standard TD 19/85. "Safety Fences and Barriers" and TD 32/93 "Wire Rope Safety Fences". Copies are lodged in the Libraries.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the regional rail users consultative committees to discuss disabled persons' access to(a) railway stations and (b) trains. [13038]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend meets members of the Rail Users' Consultative Committee from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Rail Regulator to discuss disabled persons' access to the rail network. [13043]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Rail Regulator to discuss disabled persons' access to the rail network. [13045]

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretary of State meets the Rail Regulator on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of Rail Transport. His next meeting will be on Thursday 22 February.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss disabled persons' access to, and safety on, air transport. [13046]

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to do so.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is represented on the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee— DPTAC—working group on airports and on the Access to the Skies Committee.

  Both these committees, on which my Department is also represented, are concerned with disabled persons' access to, and safety on, air transport.

  A540
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the delayed start of the A540 Ormskirk bypass. [13040]

  Mr. Watts
  I met a delegation from Ormskirk in September 1995. I visited Ormskirk and the bypass route in October 1995. I answered a question from my
  413
  hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 9 January. Following the review of the trunk road programme, the Ormskirk bypass remains in the main programme.

  Gospel Oak-Barking Line
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had recently with local authorities regarding infrastructure improvements on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. [13042]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Public Transport Investment
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the level of investment in public transport. [13044]

  Mr. Norris
  Funding for public transport was given priority in allocating the Department's resources in the last public expenditure round, and we are pressing forward with the policies we have announced for privatising and deregulating the transport market, so giving the private sector the chance to respond to passengers' demands for efficient, modern transport services.

  Safe Town Initiative
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the first results of his Department's safe town initiative will be available. [13047]

  Mr. Norris
  The initiative will be closely monitored by the Transport Research Laboratory in conjunction with Gloucester city and county councils to ensure the maximum road safety benefits are obtained. Although full results will not be available until some time after the project is completed in 2001, interim results relating to some of the measures should become available in two to three years.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when consultation work will start on the modernisation of the west coast main line. [14252]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack consulted extensively with local authorities and other parties during the feasibility study. Railtrack continues to communicate with, and inform, those people likely to be affected by the modernisation and will be considering their views at each stage of the modernisation project.

  Rail Safety
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail vehicles are being prevented from entering service awaiting completion of Railtrack's safety procedure; what is the total value of these vehicles; and what charge is being made by Railtrack for their safety assessment. [14487]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has advised me that it is not preventing any rail vehicle from entering service. I understand that the relevant safety work is being carried out by the train manufacturers and operators, who are preparing their own safety assessments. Railtrack is 414
  working with the manufacturers and operators in accepting these safety assessments. Railtrack does not charge for the acceptance procedure.

  Railtrack has appointed a panel of independent experts to review the safety appraisal process for new rolling stock, and to recommend areas for improvement while safeguarding safety.

  Driver Licensing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on(a) the progress of the implementation of the second EC directive on driver licensing and (b) how the Driving Standards Agency intends to comply with the directive with regard to large goods vehicles. [14434]

  Mr. Norris
  Work on preparation of the regulations and the operational arrangements to implement the directive is in hand. Last November, the Driving Standards Agency wrote to some 600 interested parties announcing the detailed plans for implementing the directive with regard to driving tests for large goods vehicles, and I have arranged for a copy of that letter to be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources he intends to make available to the Driving Standards Agency for compliance with the second EC directive on driver licensing by July 1996. [14437]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driving Standards Agency is an on vote non-statutory trading body whose expenditure is fully recovered by the income it receives in fees and charges. Its resources are planned in accordance with expected levels of demand for tests within unit cost targets at agreed service levels. The agency's business plan for 1996–97 is in preparation and will be deposited in the House Libraries, when completed, in accordance with our usual practice.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many large goods vehicle driving tests were conducted by delegated examiners in each of the last three years; and what were the results of those tests; [14433]

  (2) if he will list the number of delegated driving examiners employed on large goods vehicle tests by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements in place for the supervision of such examinations by the Driving Standards Agency. [14438]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State for Transport has not appointed any delegated driving examiners to undertake large goods vehicle tests.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicles were(a) inspected and (b) found defective in the last year for which figures are available. [14489]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  415
  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State had asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of heavy goods vehicles inspected and found defective in the last year for which figures are available.
  The number of vehicles inspected for their roadworthiness during the year April 1994—March 1995, and found with defects serious enough to warrant a prohibition being issued, is shown below.

  Number of prohibitions

  Total number inspected

  Immediate

  Delayed

  Fleet checks

  50,942

  1,813

  1,416

  Roadside checks

  115,157

  9,633

  9,971

  Special checks (smoke checks and lighting checks)

  14,878

  70

  401

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the maximum driving hours within which HGV drivers must operate in the United Kingdom. [14521]

  Mr. Norris
  Drivers of HGVs over 3.5 tonnes, with the exception of vehicles used for certain purposes, are subject to European Union rules on drivers' hour. They may drive for not more than 90 hours in any fortnight, 56 hours between weekly rest periods, and nine hours between daily rest periods, extendable to 10 hours twice a week. They must also take a break of at least 45 minutes for every four and a half hours of driving.

  Certain categories of HGV which are exempt from the EU rules are subject to United Kingdom national rules on drivers' hours which restrict daily driving to 10 hours and daily duty to 11 hours.

  Driving Instructors
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the risk assessment of the operational aspects of the duties of the senior examiner (approved driving instructor) grade within his Department to be completed; and if he intends to place a copy of the results in the Library. [14435]

  Mr. Norris
  The working practices of supervising examiners—approved driving instructor—are covered by several existing generic risk assessments. I will have these placed in the Library.

  Peakes Parkway
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when funds from his Department will be released to enable Humberside county council and its successor authorities to construct phase 3 of the Peakes parkway; and if he will make a statement. [14325]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is supporting stage 3 of the Peakes parkway with a supplementary credit approval of £2.55 million in 1995–96. This has enabled Humberside country council to carry out works in advance of the main contract. North East Lincolnshire district council has been allocated funds of £1 million to continue work on the scheme 1996–97. It is expected that this will enable the start to be made on the main contract. Subject to satisfactory progress, we expect to continue support for the scheme until its completion.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14025]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is reviewing its manuals and guidance. The aim is to make information available to staff and the public in a clear and accessible form. Material may be kept private for security, commercial or legal reasons. The following material is either published by the Department or may be seen on request:Central Transport Group

  "PSV Operators Licensing Handbook";

  "Local Bus Service Registrations";

  "A Guide to London Local Services Licensing";

  "Guidance to Customers on Management of Research Projects";

  "Strategy Document";

  "Intellectual Property Rights";

  "Building to the Transport Road Network";

  "Guidance to Using Call-off Contracts";

  "Tachograph Centre Manual";

  "Tachograph Calibration Manual";

  "Code of Practice for Traffic Area Offices";

  "Goods Vehicle Operating Licensing-London A Guide for Operators";

  "Goods Vehicle Operating Licensing—A Guide for Making Representation";

  "Goods Vehicle Operating Licensing—Guide for Maintaining Roadworthiness";

  "Goods Vehicles—Customer Service Guide";

  "Buses—Customer Service Guide";

  "Traffic Policy and the Environment";

  "Performance Management, Development and Appraisal— Guidance Pack";

  "Brussels: An Officials Guide";

  "Parliamentary Questions: A General Guide".

  Coastguard Agency:

  "United Kingdom Maritime Search and Rescue Handbook";

  "Oil Spill Clean-Up of the Coastline—Technical Manual".

  Highways Agency:

  "Trunk Road Maintenance Manual Vols 1–3";

  "Routine Maintenance Management System";

  "Manual of Contract Documents for Highways Work";

  "Design Manual for Roads and Bridges".

  Vehicle Certification Agency:

  "Type Approval Handbook";

  "A Guide to European Whole Vehicle Approval".

  Vehicle Inspectorate:

  "MOT Inspection Manual";

  "HGV Inspection Manual";

  "PSV Inspection Manual";

  "Motorcycle Inspection Manual";

  "Guidance Notes for Plating Goods vehicles";

  "How Safe is Your Motorcycle?";

  "Categorisation of Defects";

  "HGV Inspection Manual Amplification Notes";

  "PSV Inspection Manual Amplification Notes";

  "MOT Vehicle Test Regulations 1981";

  "MOT Vehicle Testing Guide—4th Edition";

  417

  "How Safe is Your Car?";

  "Vehicle Safety Recalls Response rate Bulletin—January 1993";

  "Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness";

  "Guide to ADR";

  "Guide to TIR";

  "MOT Inspection Manual Private Bus Testing";

  "MOT Inspection Checklist";

  "PSV Certificate Manual".

  VIDEOS

  "MOT Testing—Cars and Light Goods Vehicles";

  "MOT Testing—Motorcycles";

  "Diesel Testing".

  Sugar Beet Transportation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is being taken to enforce the requirement to net open loads of sugar beet in heavy goods vehicles on public roads. [14449]

  Mr. Norris
  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations require loads carried on vehicles to be secured at all times so that neither danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused by reason of the load falling from the vehicle. These requirements are amplified in the Department's code of practice on load security which advises that loose loads should be covered. The requirements are enforced by the police and the vehicle inspectorate as part of their general duties.

  Workplace Regulations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency within his Department the date of completion of the risk assessments required(a) by the display screen equipment regulations and (b) by the workplace regulations. [14436]

  Mr. Norris
  Where major programmes of risk assessment have been completed or have a planned completion date that is given in the table. However, the requirement to undertake risk assessments is ongoing, for example, where there are changes in staff and in the workplace, as shown in the table.

  Agency

  (a) Display screen equipment

  (b) Workplace regulations

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing agency

  April 1995

  HQ completed October 1995; local office network to be completed by May 1996

  Driving Standards Agency

  Ongoing

  Ongoing

  Highways Agency

  To be completed by March 1996

  Inspections completed by January 1996

  Marine Safety Agency

  September 1995

  September 1995

  The Coastguard Agency

  Ongoing

  Ongoing

  Transport Research Laboratory

  August 1993

  February 1996

  418

  Agency

  (a) Display screen equipment

  (b) Workplace regulations

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  January 1993

  November 1995

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  To be completed by December 1996

  To be completed by December 1996

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office the dates on which the risk assessment required by the display screen equipment regulations was carried out. [14441]

  Mr. Norris
  Information is not readily available on the exact dates of the initiation or completion of the risk assessments. But assessments of workstations already in place before the regulations came into force were carried out during 1994 and 1995 in all offices except the South Eastern and Metropolitan office, where the assessment is expected to be completed shortly.

  Assessments of new workstations normally take place as and when the latter are installed.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13826]

  Mr. Norris
  Details of the number of jobs advertised in each grade in the Department and its agencies in the last three months—November and December 1995 and January 1996—are set out in the following table.

  Central transport group figures

  Grade

  Number of jobs advertised in the last 3 months i.e. November 1995, December 1995 and January 1996

  Number of applicants who applied

  Estates surveyor

  1

  166

  Administrative officer

  6

  170

  1

  159

  1

  43

  Administrative

  3

  64

  assistant

  1

  56

  1

  12

  Total

  14

  670

  Executive agency figures

  Agency/Grade

  Number of jobs advertised in the last 3 months i.e. November 1995, December 1995 and January 1996

  Number of applicants who applied

  Coastguard (TCA)

  Chief Coastguard (Grade 5 level)

  1

  closing date 16/2/92-not in a position to say how many applications there have been.

  Grade 6 level

  1

  Same as above.

  Coastguard Officer

  6

  50

  419

  Executive agency figures

  Agency/Grade

  Number of jobs advertised in the last 3 months i.e. November 1995, December 1995 and January 1996

  Number of applicants who applied

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  71—closing date 12/2/96.

  Driving Standards Agency (DSA)

  IT Programme Manager (Grade 7 level)

  1

  25

  Communications Manager (SEO level)

  1

  44

  Communications Executive (HEO level)

  1

  59

  Support Grade Band 2

  1

  25

  Driver Vehicle & Licensing Agency (DVLA) Administrative Officer

  3

  8

  Administrative Officer (Inquiry)

  1

  13

  Administrative

  2

  8

  Assistant

  2

  14

  4

  9

  of which two jobs were re-advertised.

  of which 304 applicants (to date) applied when the 2 remaining posts were re-advertised.

  Highways Agency (HA)

  Senior Information Officer

  3

  37

  Information Officer

  2

  98

  Marine Safety Agency (MSA)

  Administrative Officer

  1

  18

  Administrative

  3

  20

  Assistant

  2

  11—closing date 9/2/96.

  Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  17

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  19

  Scientific Officer

  2

  84

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  1

  11

  Support Grade Band 2

  1

  2

  Vehicle Inspectorate (VI)

  Senior Professional & Technology Officer

  1

  25

  Higher Professional & Technology Officer

  1

  6

  Professional Technology Officer

  3

  12

  Support Grade Band 2

  1

  3

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  None advertised.

  —

  Total

  48

  993

  Road Traffic Act 1988
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Department of Health about repealing section 157 of the Road Traffic Act 1988(a) in total and (b) for pensioners only. [14307]

  Mr. Norris
  None. This is a matter for which the Secretary of State for Health has policy responsibility.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft EC legislation on the grounds that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13650]

  Mr. Watts
  The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for EC legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Ministers consider the United Kingdom's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

  Traffic Lights
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to speed up the installation of traffic lights at roundabouts at appropriate locations; and if he will make a statement. [13223]

  Mr. Norris
  It is for the highway authority concerned to decide whether to instal traffic signals at particular roundabouts, normally for reasons of safety or capacity.

  Roadside Checks
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the results of the roadside survey of illegal operators undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate in October 1995. [15167]

  Mr. Norris
  The preliminary results of the survey indicate that, of the total heavy goods vehicle mileage travelled in Great Britain, around 1.6 per cent. is by vehicles operated without an operator's licence where one should be held. The survey also indicate that vehicles operating without a licence are disproportionately likely to have roadworthiness defects and to be involved in other traffic offences such as drivers' hours and driver licensing offences. A number of more minor operator licensing offences were also found, for example involving vehicles operating outside the terms of the licence of their operator. A detailed report on the survey will be published shortly, once all the figures have been fully checked.

  Severe Weather Conditions
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extra assistance his Department has the power to offer to Copeland borough council and Cumbria county council following the recent severe weather conditions. [14817]

  Mr. Norris
  The winter maintenance of local authority roads is funded through revenue support grant. Emergency assistance to local authorities is covered by the Bellwin scheme, which may be activated by my right
  421
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment under powers in section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his estimate of the costs arising from the provisions of the Street Works (Sharing of Costs of Works) Regulations 1992 to(a) gas, (b) electricity, (c) water and sewerage and (d) telecommunications industries associated with the planned rapid transit schemes known as (i) Docklands light railway extension, (ii) Rochdale to Manchester/Oldham extension to Metrolink, (iii) Reading bus lane construction and (iv) Greater Nottingham rapid transit; and if he will make a statement; [14627]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the costs to (a) the gas, (b) the electricity, (c) the water and sewerage and (d) the telecommunications industries associated with the planned rapid transit schemes known as (i) Croydon Tramlink, (ii) Birmingham Metrolink, (iii) Leeds Supertram and (iv) the channel tunnel rail link under the provisions of the Street Works (Sharing of Costs and Works) regulations 1992; and if he will make a statement. [14469]

  Mr. Norris
  The regulations provide for the utilities to bear 18 per cent. of the allowable costs of diversionary works, the remaining 82 per cent. being borne by the promoter. Estimates of scheme costs, including diversionary works costs, are a matter for the promoter in the first instance.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written parliamentary questions were passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14991]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is a matter of public record.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Alan Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee to discuss access to public transport. [13031]

  Sir George Young
  My Department has regular meetings with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the transport needs of disabled people. I will be seeing the Chairman on the day of the June quarterly meeting.

  Public Records Office
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 57, in what circumstances he is able to release official files other than at the appropriate time under the procedures and criteria set down by the Public Records Office. [13032]

  Sir George Young
  My Department may grant "privileged" access to official files earlier than their normal review date. The decision to give such access, and 422
  the conditions which are imposed with it, are at the discretion of the Department, in line with the criteria set down by the Public Records Office.

TREASURY

  VAT (Computer Equipment)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations led Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to begin to collect VAT on computer equipment for the blind and partially sighted; and if he will publish the directive ordering the change. [14526]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 31 January 1996,Official Report, column 754.

  Trusts
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of money held in trust(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom by United Kingdom residents. [14260]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Housing Investment Trusts
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of tax relief provided to the proposed housing investment trusts in the first full year; and how many properties he anticipates will be made available for rent under the scheme in a full year. [14258]

  Mr. Jack
  We estimate the cost of tax relief in the first full year to be negligible. We have made no estimate of the number of properties that will be made available for rent through housing investment trusts. That will depend on how promoters and prospective investors respond to the new opportunity.

  Cross-channel Shopping
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the loss of revenue from cross-channel shopping; if he will make a statement on his underlying assumptions in formulating this estimate; and what estimate he has made of the number of cross-channel trips made annually for the primary purpose of avoiding excise duties. [14261]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise's latest estimate of the loss of revenue cross channel shopping is as follows:

  Total revenue losses

  £ million

  12 Months to June 1995

  Excise duty

  VAT

  Total

  Alcoholic drinks

  160

  60

  220

  Tobacco products

  120

  30

  150

  Total

  280

  90

  370

  Source:

  OPCS Omnibus Survey.
  423
  The estimate of revenue loss assumes that only 50 per cent. of cross-border purchases of alcohol represent a loss of UK sales and duty; the other 50 per cent., is assumed to be additional spending associated with the lower prices on the continent. For tobacco, it is assumed that all cross-border shopping replaces UK sales. The calculation also requires assumptions about the average strength of alcohol purchased abroad and the average prices at which this alcohol or tobacco would have been sold in the UK.

  The omnibus survey does not identify how many trips are made for the primary purpose of purchasing alcohol or tobacco abroad.

  Public Supply Contracts
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to seek to raise the limit on the value of public supply contracts in excess of which EC directive 77/62/EEC as amended by 88/295/EEC applies. [14103]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Council directive 77/62/EEC, as subsequently amended, on the award of public supply contracts, has been replaced by Council directive 93/36/EEC. The Commission has proposed a marginal increase to align the threshold at which the directive applies with the multilateral Government procurement agreement under the World Trade Organisation that came into effect on 1 January 1996. My Department has no plans to seek a further increase but will wish to consider an impact assessment being undertaken for the Commission.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13836]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In the period from November 1995 to January 1996 there were two advertisements to recruit staff. One is to fill the post of head of internal audit, which may be filled at grade 5, 6 or 7 and the application process is currently on-going. The other was to fill economic adviser posts in a number of departments, including two Treasury grade 7 economist posts, for which there were 33 applications.

  European Monetary Institute
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the capital cost provided by the Bank of England toward the funding of the EMI, in total and annually including projected contributions to 2000; and if this will be refunded if a European central bank is created but Britain does not participate in a single currency. [13439]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Article 16 of the protocol on the statute of the European Monetary Institute, annexed to the EC treaty, provides for member states' central banks to make contributions towards the capital resources of the EMI. The Bank of England has contributed 94.5 million ecu—equivalent to £74.7 million at the time—towards the capital of the EMI. The Bank of England made its contributions to the EMI from its own resources and its share of the EMI's capital is one of its own assets.
  424
  Article 1091 of the treaty states that the EMI shall go into liquidation upon the establishment of the ECB— European central bank. The proceeds of the liquidation will be distributed to national central banks in the same proportion as capital was provided, under the terms of article 23 of the protocol. This procedure will apply whether or not the United Kingdom participates in the single currency.

  Suppliers Charter
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish a suppliers charter to ensure that(a) all suppliers and (b) small and medium enterprises have the opportunity to compete for the provision of goods and services in open competition. [14586]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury follows the good customer practice for Government relationships with suppliers. This is set out on page 41 of the White Paper "Setting New Standards, A Strategy for Government Procurement", published by HMSO in May 1995.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the annual limits below which no tax is paid on contributions for(a) employers' contributions and (b) employees' contributions to (i) executive pension plans, (ii) personal pension plans and (iii) small self-administered pension schemes. [14667]

  Mr. Jack
  In occupational pension schemes, which includes executive pension plans and small self-administered pension schemes, employee members may annually contribute up to 15 per cent. of their salary with tax relief. There is no specific limit on employer contributions, but they should not exceed the amount required to provide the benefits promised by the scheme.

  In personal pension plans, employee members may annually pay a percentage of their salary as follows:

  Age of member on first day of tax year

  Maximum percentage of salary payable

  35 or less

  17.5

  36–45

  20

  46–50

  25

  51–55

  30

  56–60

  35

  61–74

  40

  These annual limits for personal pension schemes may be increased by unused contributions relief from past tax years. Any employer contributions to personal pensions must, when aggregate with the employee's contribution fall within the above limits.

  Government Bonds (Payment)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that a present purchaser of Her Majesty's Government's bonds with a redemption date after 1999 will receive payment in pound sterling. [13615]
  425
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The presidency conclusion from the European Council on 15 to 16 December 1995 in Madrid state that, on the assumption that the third stage of EMU starts on 1 January 1999, in participating member states,"by 1 January 2002 at the latest, public debt denominated in the former national currencies will be redeemable only in the single currency".
  426
  Protocol No. 11 annexed to the EC treaty means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in the single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Visitors' Facilities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what new proposals he has to improve facilities for visitors to the House. [13049]

  Mr. Beith
  On 12 July 1994, the House approved a recommendation from the Catering Committee that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted into a visitors' centre.

  Cleaning Contracts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission which company holds the cleaning contract in respect of common areas, kitchens and men's and women's lavatories, and rooms other than Members and Members' staff rooms, at 7 Millbank; when it commenced; when it will terminate; what is its value; and if it was awarded by competitive tender. [14467]

  Mr. Beith
  The cleaning contract for the parliamentary estate, including 7 Millbank is held by ISS London Ltd. The contract commenced in August 1992 and will terminate in August 1997. The value of the contract is subject to commercial confidentiality, but the annual cost of contract cleaning at 7 Millbank, excluding the rooms of Members and their staff, is £190,000. The contract was awarded by competitive tender.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in each Department of the House during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have been applied for each such job. [13894]

  Mr. Beith
  In the three months ending 31 January 1996 details of recruitment exercises held to fill vacancies in Departments of the House, together with the number of applicants for each, are as follows:

  Vacancy

  Department

  Number of applications

  Legal Assistant (Grade 8–10)

  Clerk's

  48

  Secretary (Grade 3)

  Serjeant at Arms

  33

  Network Planning Officer (Grade 7)

  Serjeant at Arms

  24

  Doorkeeper (Grade 12)

  Serjeant at Arms

  1,002

  Word Processing Assistant (Grade 13)

  Official Report

  66

  Foreman (DELI)

  Parliamentary Works Directorate

  6

  Fitter (DEL3)

  Parliamentary Works Directorate

  18

  Storekeeper (DEL4)

  Parliamentary Works Directorate

  14

  Craft Auxiliary (DEL6)

  Parliamentary Works Directorate

  5

  Heating Attendant (DEL6)

  Parliamentary Works Directorate

  19

  Assistant Financial Controller (Grade 10)

  Refreshment

  13

  Income Control Clerk (Grade 13)

  Refreshment

  5

  428

  Vacancy

  Department

  Number of applications

  Food and Beverage Control Clerk (Grade 13)

  Refreshment

  14

  Chefs (7 vacancies)

  Refreshment

  28

  Westminster Hall (Media Use)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will assess the advantages of allowing live media use of Westminster Hall. [13054]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The authorities controlling Westminster Hall have already agreed that permission may be granted to film interviews in the Hall before 9.30 am on sitting Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and during recesses.

  Filming is also permitted in any of the six interview rooms off the Hall, and in the Jubilee Room.

  Photocopiers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what are the rules governing the use of photocopiers owned and maintained by the House authorities; what assessment he has made of the extent to which photocopiers are being used to excess; and what measures are being pursued to prevent such abuses. [13051]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Photocopiers owned and maintained by the House are intended for use by hon. Members in connection with their parliamentary duties. They are not intended to be used for work in connection with hon. Members' party political or non-parliamentary work outside Parliament. Detailed guidance on their use is given in a notice adjacent to each photocopier.

  As a result of a recent study into control systems to prevent abuse of photocopying facilities, the Administration Committee approved a trial of overprinted photocopy paper in 7 Millbank, to run from the return of the House from the Christmas adjournment, until its rise for the Easter adjournment. The results will then be considered in order to establish what effect the introduction of this paper has had on consumption, and will enable the Committee to decide on any further action.

  Catering Facilities
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what plans he has to upgrade catering facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster. [13052]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 15 January,Official Report, column 350.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what additional provision he plans to make for additional catering facilities at the House of Commons in the next financial year. [13056]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  There are no additional catering facilities planned in the next financial year.
  429
  However, the refurbishment of existing outlets will continue, which will update and improve the facilities currently available to hon. Members and all others who work in the Palace.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will make a statement on the measures taken to combat the presence of Legionnaires' disease. [13060]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 15 January,Official Report column 350.

  EU Decision Making
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve parliamentary scrutiny of European Union decision making; and if he will make a statement. [13064]

  Mr. Newton
  Scrutiny procedures are kept under review, but I have no specific plans for change at present. Careful consideration will be given to any proposals emerging from the Select Committee on European Legislation intergovernmental conference inquiry.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report column 365, what factors preclude him from setting up a Select Committee on the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [13063]

  Mr. Newton
  There have already been a number of investigations and inquiries including the fatal accident inquiry, the Transport Select Committee and the US presidential commission. It is difficult to see what further areas a Select Committee on the destruction of Pan Am 103 could look at without encroaching on evidence which can properly be addressed only in the context of a criminal trial of the two Libyans accused.

  All-night Sittings
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many all-night sittings there have been in the period since the Jopling report recommendations were introduced. [13062]

  Mr. Newton
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14037]

  Mr. Boswell
  In accordance with paragraph 3(ii) of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", we have already made available the great majority of the Ministry's administrative guidelines on our dealings with the public. These are as listed. The remainder, some 430
  chapters in the "Instructions for Regional Service Centres and Instructions for Veterinary Officers", will be made available as soon as possible.

  Where guidance contains information which should properly be kept confidential under the code, relevant sections have been removed and each has been marked to this effect.

  Guidelines released to date:

  Instruction on period to be allowed for public consultation exercises.

  Aide-Memoire on open government.

  Control manuals for the UKROFS certification system.

  Operating manual for the UKROFS certification scheme for organic food production.

  Guidance for dealing with complaints received by the MAFF consumer helpline.

  Checklist for dealing with applications for export certificates for food additives.

  Desk instructions for processing applications for certificates for exports of animal feedingstuffs, feed additives, fertilisers and related products.

  Desk instructions on the fishing vessels decommissioning scheme 1994.

  Desk instructions for handling harbours legislation.

  Instructions for dealing with the fishing vessel safety improvements grants scheme 1993.

  Classification of shellfish production and relaying areas.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act licensing.

  Internal instructions for dealing with the monitoring for algal toxins.

  Several regulating orders.

  Instructions (for the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate) for dealing with sea fish licensing in "Community" waters.

  Handbook for nuclear accident response.

  HMI instruction manual for dealing with quality standards for fruit and vegetables.

  Library procedures manual.

  D3/94: "Library Visitors".

  D2/94: "Handling Enquiries from the Public".

  Land use planning handbook.

  Desk instructions for dealing with the processing of licences for deposits at sea including burial under Food and Environment Protection Act.

  Guide for enforcement of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974—version 2 (January 1985).

  Divisional desk instructions for dealing with the marketing development scheme.

  Desk instructions for dealing with the processing and marketing grant scheme.

  Instructions on the operating of the egg marketing regulation.

  Instructions on the operation of the hatching eggs and chicks regulation.

  Desk instructions for issuing of licences to import and/or retain prohibited plant material etc. under the provisions of the Plant Health (GB) Order 1993.

  Plant Health and Seed Inspectorate (PHSI) handbook.

  Desk instructions for issuing phystosanitary certificates for export of plant products to third countries.

  Desk instructions on the handling of applications for plant breeders' rights and national listing.

  Desk instructions for processing applications under the postgraduate agricultural and food studentship scheme.

  431

  The introduction of fish from other member states, the licensing of live fish imports from third countries and movements of dead fish and fish viscera.

  Desk instructions on licensing live fish and shellfish imports from third countries.

  Assessment handbook: "Methods for the Assessment of the potential Impact of Authorised Disposal of Radioactive Waste into the Atmosphere".

  Food and agriculture radioactivity monitoring programme 1995 (FARM) 1995—analytical requirements.

  Radioactivity monitoring: TRAMP and FARM sampling requirements 1995.

  Terrestrial Radiological monitoring programme (TRAMP) procedures document.

  Instructions for veterinary officers and local veterinary inspectors (part released).

  Regional service centre instructions relating to:

  Misuse of pesticides (ENV 15).

  Destruction of moles by Strychnine (ENV 11).

  Agricultural wages enforcement (GEN 5).

  Apple orchard grubbing up scheme (GRA 21).

  IACS (GEN 19).

  Habitat scheme (GRA 30).

  Beef special premium scheme (LIV 12).

  ALT land drainage cases (GEN 14).

  Terrestrial radioactivity monitoring programme (TRAMP) (ENV 16).

  Agricultural wages committees (GEN 4).

  Agricultural dwelling house advisory committees (GEN 9).

  Environmentally sensitive areas (GRA 8).

  Environmental pollution (ENV 5).

  (New) Nitrate sensitive areas (GRA 29).

  Pilot nitrate sensitive areas (GRA 20).

  Sheep annual premium scheme (LIV 1).

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances (HLCS's) 1988–93 (LIV 2).

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances 1994 (LIV 11).

  Suckler cow premium scheme (LIV 8).

  Refund on starch used in the manufacture of approved products (IB 38).

  The declared stocks scheme for barley and malt (IB 8).

  Support buying and sale of cereals (IB 1).

  Farm woodland premium scheme (GRA 24).

  Agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme (AHCS) (GRA 5).

  Aid for concentrated grape must: Sampling and testing procedures (IB 29).

  Certification scheme for hops and hop products.

  Apple orchard grubbing up scheme 1994–95 (GRA 33).

  Intervention arrangements—fresh fruit and vegetables (IB 2).

  Short term lettings and licences (GEN 10).

  Infestation control mammals and birds: badgers—licensing arrangements (ENV 17).

  Rabbits (ENV 12).

  Non-indigenous species (ENV 14).

  Licensing procedures for the killing or taking of wild birds (ENV 10).

  Infestation control mammals and birds: legislation (ENV 9).

  Infestation control mammals and birds: introduction (ENV 8).

  Infestation control mammals and birds: deer (ENV 13).

  SLOM II (LIV 7).

  432

  Aid for Liquid Skimmed Milk, Buttermilk for use as stockfeed (IB 15).

  Milk supplementary levy (IB 33).

  SLOM III (LIV 9).

  Milk supplementary levy: temporary reallocation of quota arising from herd movements restrictions (MIL 8).

  SLOM compensation (LIV 10).

  Statistics: Agricultural censuses and surveys (GEN 6).

  Dehydrated fodder (IB 5).

  Aid for refining raw cane sugar (IB 41).

  Olive oil consumption aid (IB 32).

  Flax and hemp subsidy (IB 7).

  Isoglucose production levy (IB 30).

  Consultants (Expenditure)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department for the use of consultants in each of these years. [11351]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Expenditure on consultants in the financial year 1979–80 could be provided only at disproportionate expense. Expenditure in each of the other years concerned was as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£)

  1989–90

  2,972,150

  1991–92

  5,374,284

  1993–94

  13,071,785

  1994–95

  12,259,782

  1995–96 (to date)

  10,245,969

  1995–96 (whole year estimated)

  14,736,635

  1996–97 (estimated)

  11,328,389

  These figures exclude the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Meat Hygiene Service, which will be submitting separate replies.

  It is not possible to quantify savings accruing from this expenditure, since most of the benefits derive from new systems and working methods, and from the consultants' expertise in certain fields, in which permanent staff do not have the necessary knowledge and experience.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 26 January 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on external consultants by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for 1979–80 and each year since 1989–90, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The Directorate was established as a Next Steps Agency on 2 April 1990 and did not maintain its own accounts until 1991–92.
  433
  Details of expenditure on external consultants since that date are as follows:

  1991–92: £ 5,869

  1992–93: £ 41,272

  1993–94: £ 34,281

  1994–95: £ 12,705

  1995–96: £ 4,042 (to date)

  1995–96: £ 5,500 (Forecast)

  1996–97: £ 6,000 (Forecast)

  It is not possible to quantify savings accruing from this expenditure, since most of the benefits derive from new systems and working methods and from the consultants expertise in certain fields, in which permanent staff do not have the necessary knowledge and experience.

  Number imported

  Dead on arrival

  Percentage

  Dead in quarantine

  Percentage

  1988

  184,577

  4,732

  2.56

  20,619

  11.17

  1989

  184,601

  4,015

  2.17

  19,471

  10.55

  1990

  175,967

  3,543

  2.01

  18,138

  10.31

  1991

  129,490

  3,444

  2.66

  15,734

  12.15

  1992

  94,927

  3,573

  3.76

  9,506

  10.01

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three

  Casual

  Permanent

  Grade

  Number of posts

  Number of applicants

  Number of posts

  Number of applicants

  Grade 6

  —

  —

  1

  16

  Higher Scientific Officer/Senior Scientific Officer

  —

  —

  4

  691

  Scientific Officer/Higher Scientific Officer

  —

  —

  2

  38

  Horticultural Marketing Inspector

  —

  —

  8

  146

  Animal Health Officer

  —

  —

  2

  172

  Scientific Officer

  —

  —

  1

  26

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  2

  123

  —

  —

  Technical Grade II

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Administrative Officer

  6

  367

  1

  12

  Administrative Assistant

  236

  840

  4

  202

  Typist

  5

  17

  —

  —

  Support Grade Band I

  1

  11

  4

  31

  Support Grade Band II

  23

  101

  1

  4

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13829]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments is in the table.

  1. Permanent non-industrial staff, figures for October-December 1995

  Grade

  Number of posts advertised

  Number of applicants

  Grade 5: Chief Executive, Business Development Service

  1

  31

  Imported Animals and Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list mortalities amongst wild birds imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1989. [8776]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: Mortality statistics for wild birds imported into the UK have been published for the years 1988 and 1992 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A summary of the results is set out. Statistics for 1993 and 1994 are in preparation and these will also be placed in the Library as soon as they are published.

  months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13834]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of jobs advertised by his Department by grade during the last three months, and the number of applicants for each job, is as follows:

  1. Permanent non-industrial staff, figures for October-December 1995

  Grade

  Number of posts advertised

  Number of applicants

  Grade 6/5: Business Co-operation Manager

  1

  90

  Grade 6: Divisional Water Manager

  1

  28

  Grade 7: Accountant

  1

  18

  Grade 7: Corporate Finance Director

  3

  30

  DP: Assistant Corporate Finance Executive

  3

  26

  DP: Accountant

  1

  18

  SO: Accountant

  2

  2

  Senior Scientific Officer: Ruminant Nutrition Research

  1

  15

  Senior Scientific Officer: Pig Production Research

  1

  10

  Higher Scientific Officer: Food Chemistry

  1

  14

  435

  1. Permanent non-industrial staff, figures for October-December 1995

  Grade

  Number of posts advertised

  Number of applicants

  Scientific Officer: Information and Library

  1

  42

  Scientific Officer: Marine Biologist

  1

  120

  Lecturer in Equine Studies

  1

  26

  Legal Assistant

  1

  39

  Law Clerk

  1

  46

  Graduate Trainee Civil Engineer

  4

  165

  Graduate Trainee Electrical Engineer

  1

  37

  Stores Officer Grade C

  1

  46

  Management Trainee

  Up to 20

  1,964

  Support Grade Band 2: Laboratory Attendant

  2

  42

  2. Casual and Industrial Staff, figures for November 1995-January 1996

  Grade

  Number of posts advertised

  Number of applicants

  Casual Administrative Assistant

  55

  499

  Casual Administrative Assistant

  1Not specified

  1,028

  Casual Assistant Scientific Officer

  4

  33

  Casual Support Grade Band 2: Laboratory Attendant

  12

  25

  Casual Support Grade Band 2

  1Not specified

  221

  Casual Inspector Group 1

  15

  27

  Casual Inspector Grade III/IV

  9

  66

  Temporary Instructional Officer

  1

  5

  Part-time Medical Referee

  1Not specified

  51

  Sessional Inspector

  1Not specified

  20

  Sessional Health Education Nurse:

  Grade D

  1Not specified

  41

  Casual Typist

  1Not specified

  24

  Casual Contractor

  1Not specified

  54

  Miscellaneous Industrial Posts

  32 Permanent

  12 Casual

  301

  Casual Typist

  2

  16

  Ranger

  1

  3

  Water Operator

  3

  6

  Road Worker

  5

  79

  Motor Mechanic

  2

  2

  Fitter

  1

  4

  1DHSS and NIO advertised periodically to create a pool of suitable candidates.

  Water Leakage
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made over the last five years of leakage from the public water supply on a comparable basis with those figures that have been produced by the privatised water companies in England and Wales. [13422]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: Losses from the public water distribution system in Northern Ireland are currently estimated to be 9.5 cu m per kilometre of main per day. This is in the mid range of figures issued by Ofwat for England and Wales. Earlier leakage assessments for Northern Ireland were not made on the comparative basis issued by Ofwat.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11426]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information on all travel, accommodation and other associated expenses of Northern Ireland Departments is listed.

  £000s

  1979–80: n/a

  1989–90: 8,7581

  1991–92: 13,744

  1993–94: 15,207

  1994–95: 14,204

  1995–96: 15,798

  1996–97: 4,6572

  Note:

  1 Information not available in DHSS and DANI.

  2 Excludes DED, DOE and DHSS as budgets have not yet been agreed.

  Information on the Northern Ireland Office is not included.

  Information on non-departmental public bodies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  River Maine (Pollution)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what attempts have been made by the fishery division to investigate the damage inflicted on the River Maine system by pollution. [13203]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: The statutory responsibility for investigating damage inflicted on water courses by pollution incidents lies with the Department of the Environment. The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland, acting as agents for the DOE, investigated a total of 29 reported incidents of pollution in the River Maine and its tributaries in 1995. As a result five prosecutions are pending and 12 warning letters were issued.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the expenditure on regional selective assistance offers accepted by companies in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94 and (d) 1994–95, the proportion of regional selective assistance expenditure on foreign-owned firms and regional selective assistance expenditure per employee in manufacturing. [12701]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: In Northern Ireland selective financial assistance is administered by the Industrial Development Board and the local enterprise development unit. The information set out in the following tables shows the value of SFA offers

  437
  accepted, total expenditure to date under such offers, the proportion paid to foreign-owned firms, and expenditure per employee in manufacturing industry.

  Selective financial assistance

  Industrial Development Board

  Value of SFA offers accepted in each year (£ million)

  Payments to date under those offers (£ million)

  Percentage of payments by value made to foreign owned firms

  1991–92

  64.34

  30.29

  37

  1992–93

  95.12

  46.74

  63

  1993–94

  127.08

  64.23

  49

  1994–95

  102.14

  26.26

  36

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Value of SFA offers accepted in each year (£ million)

  Payments to date under those offers (£ million)

  payments by value made to foreign owned firms

  1991–92

  not available

  not available

  nil

  1992–93

  not available

  not available

  nil

  1993–94

  19.54

  10.58

  nil

  1994–95

  21.93

  10.62

  nil

  Foreign-owned firms are those whose country of ownership is outside the United Kingdom.

  The average selective financial assistance expenditure to date per employee in manufacturing was £732 in respect of the 1993–94 offers and £355 in respect of the 1994–95 offers.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Funding (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students received funding from the North Yorkshire county council for courses outside the county in 1994 and 1995. [14238]

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  In the academic year 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, North Yorkshire local education authority made 12,380 mandatory awards and 230 discretionary awards to higher education students and 5,880 discretionary awards to students on courses of further education. Information on the place of study is not collected by the Department for these award holders.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 285, if the current survey into IT provision will list information relating to (a) the number of schools and pupils with access to the Internet, (b) the number of schools with a local area network, (c) the number of CD-ROM machines in each school and (d) the number and type of computers available to pupils in their home. [14197]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The survey will collect information on access to the Internet, the number of computers linked by internal networks and the number of computers with 438
  CD-ROM drives. No information is being collected on computers used by pupils at home. Information on the number of households with home computers is collected by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the general household survey and published in "Social Trends".

  Benefit Agency Staff (Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will carry out an audit of safety for staff working in Government benefit agencies throughout the country. [14050]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Ms Joan Walley, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about safety for staff working in government benefit agencies.
  I can confirm that all of our offices carry out regular risk assessments that take account of all known risks that arise out of our work. These include customer aggression, general office hazards and use of display screen equipment.
  All assessments are reviewed regularly through our normal safety inspection procedures.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Education Funding (Warwickshire)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment pursuant to her answer of 2 February,Official Report, columns 982–83, (1) what proportion of the figure of £52,239,000 is apportioned to schools in Warwickshire; [14265]

  (2) how much is spent by Warwickshire local education authority in administration; and if this is additional to the figure of £52,239,000. [14266]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The figure of £52,239,000 quoted in my answer of 2 February,Official Report, columns 982–83, is taken from the authority's 1995–96 local management of schools budget statement and, as such, relates wholly to schools covered by the authority's LMS scheme. Within that total the budget head "management and administration" accounts for £2,924,000.

  Figures for expenditure on administration outside the general schools budget for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy that jobcentres should identify to hon. Members companies using the jobcentre services. [14090]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from. Mike Fogden to Mr. Denis McShane, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking if she will make it her policy that Jobcentres should disclose to honourable Members the companies using the Jobcentre services.

  439
  The Employment Service treats information provided by companies using our services as confidential and will only use such information for the purpose it was provided. In the case of vacancies, the information is used in discussion with interested applicants. The Employment Service will not disclose information from companies for other purposes without informing them of the nature of any request and obtaining their permission.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost(a) to each local education authority in England and (b) nationally of a 3.8 per cent. increase in teachers' pay in 1996–97. [14480]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total estimated cost in England of a teachers' pay increase in 1996–97 of 3.8 per cent. is around £395 million. The following table illustrates the cost of such an award by updating the 1993–94 expenditure recorded by local education authorities in England for teaching staff salaries in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by the teachers' pay awards of 2.9 per cent. in 1994–95 and 2.7 per cent. in 1995–96 and an increase of 3.8 per cent. in 1996–97. The 1993–94 expenditure figures are the latest available for local education authority maintained schools in England. The figures in the table take no account of changes in teacher numbers or other factors that affect the teachers' pay bill.

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  Per-Primary and Primary, Secondary and Special Schools

  1993–94 (actual) £000

  1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.) £000

  1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.) £000

  1996–97 increase (3.8 per cent.) £000

  Corporation of London

  378

  11

  11

  15

  Camden

  37,774

  1,095

  1,049

  1,517

  Greenwich

  53,751

  1,559

  1,493

  2,159

  Hackney

  41,871

  1,214

  1,163

  1,681

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25,087

  728

  697

  1,007

  Islington

  37,294

  1,082

  1,036

  1,498

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,922

  462

  442

  639

  Lambeth

  39,698

  1,151

  1,103

  1,594

  Lewisham

  43,235

  1,254

  1,201

  1,736

  Southwark

  38,056

  1,104

  1,057

  1,528

  Tower Hamlets

  58,012

  1,682

  1,612

  2,330

  Wandsworth

  31,532

  914

  876

  1,266

  City of Westminster

  30,151

  874

  838

  1,211

  Barking

  34,487

  1,000

  958

  1,385

  Barnet

  55,491

  1,609

  1,542

  2,228

  Bexley

  40,962

  1,188

  1,138

  1,645

  Brent

  39,613

  1,149

  1,101

  1,591

  Bromley

  35,283

  1,023

  980

  1,417

  Croydon

  51,278

  1,487

  1,425

  2,059

  Ealing

  46,119

  1,337

  1,281

  1,852

  Enfield

  51,873

  1,504

  1,441

  2,083

  Haringey

  48,595

  1,409

  1,350

  1,951

  Harrow

  38,702

  1,122

  1,075

  1,554

  Havering

  41,677

  1,209

  1,158

  1,674

  Hillingdon

  26,648

  773

  740

  1,070

  Hounslow

  46,927

  1,361

  1,304

  1,884

  Kingston Upon Thames

  21,879

  634

  608

  879

  Merton

  33,279

  965

  925

  1,336

  Newham

  54,533

  1,581

  1,515

  2,190

  Redbridge

  49,548

  1,437

  1,377

  1,990

  Richmond Upon Thames

  25,724

  746

  715

  1,033

  440

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  Per-Primary and Primary, Secondary and Special Schools

  1993–94 (actual) £000

  1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.) £000

  1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.) £000

  1996–97 increase (3.8 per cent.) £000

  Sutton

  22,531

  653

  626

  905

  Waltham Forest

  46,867

  1,359

  1,302

  1,882

  Birmingham

  211,785

  6,142

  5,884

  8,505

  Coventry

  69,840

  2,025

  1,940

  2,805

  Dudley

  55,540

  1,611

  1,543

  2,230

  Sandwell

  66,061

  1,916

  1,835

  2,653

  Solihull

  41,921

  1,216

  1,165

  1,683

  Walsall

  55,669

  1,614

  1,547

  2,236

  Wolverhampton

  53,635

  1,555

  1,490

  2,154

  Knowsley

  34,935

  1,013

  971

  1,403

  Liverpool

  104,939

  3,043

  2,916

  4,214

  St. Helens

  39,149

  1,135

  1,088

  1,572

  Sefton

  57,370

  1,664

  1,594

  2,304

  Wirral

  69,278

  2,009

  1,925

  2,782

  Bolton

  54,728

  1,587

  1,521

  2,198

  Bury

  33,505

  972

  931

  1,345

  Manchester

  91,541

  2,655

  2,543

  3,676

  Oldham

  56,483

  1,638

  1,569

  2,268

  Rochdale

  39,389

  1,142

  1,094

  1,582

  Salford

  47,641

  1,382

  1,324

  1,913

  Stockport

  53,551

  1,553

  1,488

  2,150

  Tameside

  39,501

  1,146

  1,097

  1,586

  Trafford

  36,262

  1,052

  1,007

  1,456

  Wigan

  66,655

  1,933

  1,852

  2,677

  Barnsley

  41,363

  1,200

  1,149

  1,661

  Doncaster

  62,198

  1,804

  1,728

  2,498

  Rotherham

  58,540

  1,698

  1,626

  2,351

  Sheffield

  92,046

  2,669

  2,557

  3,696

  Bradford

  109,072

  3,163

  3,030

  4,380

  Calderdale

  37,935

  1,100

  1,054

  1,523

  Kirklees

  81,076

  2,351

  2,253

  3,256

  Leeds

  146,072

  4,236

  4,058

  5,866

  Wakefield

  63,131

  1,831

  1,754

  2,535

  Gateshead

  40,458

  1,173

  1,124

  1,625

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  53,518

  1,552

  1,487

  2,149

  North Tyneside

  40,501

  1,175

  1,125

  1,626

  South Tyneside

  31,493

  913

  875

  1,265

  Sunderland

  65,654

  1,904

  1,824

  2,637

  Isles of Scilly

  608

  18

  17

  24

  Avon

  177,289

  5,141

  4,926

  7,120

  Bedfordshire

  105,301

  3,054

  2,926

  4,229

  Berkshire

  135,540

  3,931

  3,766

  5,443

  Buckinghamshire

  112,209

  3,254

  3,118

  4,506

  Cambridgeshire

  103,041

  2,988

  2,863

  4,138

  Cheshire

  185,457

  5,378

  5,153

  7,448

  Cleveland

  124,442

  3,609

  3,457

  4,997

  Cornwall

  86,653

  2,513

  2,407

  3,480

  Cumbria

  88,947

  2,579

  2,471

  3,572

  Derbyshire

  168,175

  4,877

  4,672

  6,754

  Devon

  175,999

  5,104

  4,890

  7,068

  Dorset

  98,186

  2,847

  2,278

  3,943

  Durham

  120,743

  3,502

  3,355

  4,849

  East Sussex

  116,123

  3,368

  3,226

  4,663

  Essex

  211,358

  6,129

  5,872

  8,488

  Gloucestershire

  74,050

  2,147

  2,057

  2,974

  Hampshire

  256,960

  7,452

  7,139

  10,319

  Hereford and Worcester

  128,339

  3,722

  3,566

  5,154

  Hertfordshire

  186,227

  5,401

  5,174

  7,487

  Humberside

  177,122

  5,137

  4,921

  7,113

  Isle of Wight

  24,264

  704

  674

  974

  Kent

  227,895

  6,609

  6,332

  9,152

  Lancashire

  294,517

  8,541

  8,183

  11,827

  Leicestershire

  18,004

  5,365

  5,140

  7,429

  Lincolnshire

  88,099

  2,555

  2,448

  3,538

  441

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  Per-Primary and Primary, Secondary and Special Schools

  1993–94 (actual) £000

  1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.) £000

  1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.) £000

  1996–97 increase (3.8 per cent.) £000

  Norfolk

  124,807

  3,619

  3,468

  5,012

  North Yorkshire

  138,958

  4,030

  3,861

  5,580

  Northamptonshire

  109,086

  3,163

  3,031

  4,381

  Northumberland

  62,398

  1,810

  1,734

  2,506

  Nottinghamshire

  204,137

  5,920

  5,672

  8,198

  Oxfordshire

  105,430

  3,057

  2,929

  4,234

  Shropshire

  79,422

  2,303

  2,207

  3,189

  Somerset

  84,749

  2,458

  2.355

  3,403

  Staffordshire

  193,818

  5,621

  5,385

  7,783

  Suffolk

  130,118

  3,773

  3,615

  5,225

  Surrey

  143,690

  4,167

  3,992

  5,770

  Warwickshire

  90,965

  2,638

  2,527

  3,653

  West Sussex

  128,568

  3,728

  3,572

  5,163

  Wiltshire

  96,340

  2,794

  2,677

  3,869

  Teachers' Pensions
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the total amount paid in pension contributions(a) by employers of teachers in the public sector and (b) by teachers; [14810]

  (2) if she will estimate the cost of the pensions of teachers in the public sector for the current year. [14790]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total amounts paid in pension contributions to the teachers' superannuation scheme during 1994–95 were £971,009,000 by teachers' employers and £687,743,000 by teachers. The cost of pensions for teachers in the teachers' superannuation scheme, as measured by the most recent approved estimate for gross expenditure for 1995–96 on the teachers' superannuation vote is £2,952,145,000.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has had on the decision to limit the access to work scheme announced in her answer on 14 December,Official Report, column 738; and if she will make a statement. [14137]

  Mr. Paice
  Since the announcement about access to work, made on 14 December by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, we have received requests for further clarification of the announcement; expressions of concern about the immediate measures taken and about the level of planned expenditure for 1996–97 and requests for information about the review of the programme and its future operation.

  Nursery Inspectors
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for nursery inspectors to be required to undergo police checks. [14771]
  442
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Subject to parliamentary approval, it will be for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to recruit, train and register funded nursery education inspectors. This Department will agree with the chief inspector general criteria relating to suitability.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what instructions jobcentre staff receive about reporting employers to the Equal Opportunities Commission when there has been no complaint of sex discrimination. [14501]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Barry Field, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what instructions Jobcentre staff receive about reporting employers to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) when there has been no complaint of sex discrimination.
  It may be helpful if I begin by explaining that both employers and the Employment Service (ES) are required to operate within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Acts 1975 and 1986. Whilst doing all we can to help employers fill their vacancies, the ES is required to challenge any indication that an employer may be seeking to recruit unlawfully. In the first instance, my people would attempt to resolve the matter by explaining what the law requires and asking the employer to reconsider their recruitment practices. Where instances of this sort cannot be resolved by the ES in that way, details are referred to the EOC for their consideration.
  I should also stress that my people at Jobcentres run the risk of being a party to discrimination if they display a vacancy for an employer who has indicated they intend unlawfully to discriminate against a job applicant. This position is not affected by the absence of a complaint by a jobseeker.
  I hope this helps to clarify the position.

DEFENCE

  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what(a) was his original estimate and (b) is his current estimate of the total cost of locating the new joint service command and staff college at Camberley; [14421]

  (2) when his Department concluded that the works programme for the new joint service command and staff college would be delayed; and what reasons were given; [14422]

  (3) what studies his Department has commissioned to investigate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of locating the new joint service command and staff college at Camberley; from whom; and at what cost; [14423]

  (4) if he has commissioned studies investigating the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of locating the new joint service command and staff college elsewhere than Camberley; from whom; and at what cost; [14424]
  443
  (5) what is his estimate of the financial involvement expected from the private sector in the provision of accommodation and services for the new joint service command and staff college; [14425]

  (6) what sites in (i) Scotland, (ii) England and (iii) Wales he has examined as possible locations for the joint service command and staff college; [14426]

  (7) how many proposals he has received for alternative locations for the joint service command and staff college; [14427]

  (8) what is his estimate of the financial cost of the delay to the works programme for the new joint service command and staff college. [14428]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: My Department has examined in detail the Royal Naval college Greenwich, the Army staff college at Camberley and RAF Bracknell as potential locations for the joint service command and staff college.

  The estimated cost of establishing a JSCSC at Camberley, which I placed in the Library of the House on 31 March 1995 following the consultation period, was £208 million over 25 years at net present value. Our current estimate of the costs, on a comparable basis, is some £239 million.

  The increase in estimated cost is principally me result of an increase in student numbers—from 312 to 367 on the main course—IT and academic support. These changes would be applicable to the JSCSC irrespective of its location, so the conclusion that Camberley is the most cost-effective and appropriate of the sites examined remains robust.

  By bringing to the project private sector skills and disciplines, we expect to make significant savings over the current estimate. No proposals exploring the feasibility of alternative locations for the JSCSC have yet been received, nor will we be able to estimate the financial involvement from the private sector until we have received expressions of interest, for which we will advertise shortly.

  In September 1995, we received the initial report from the works project manager and subsequently concluded that the works programme for the JSCSC buildings could not realistically be completed by September 1997.

  We have since commissioned work to examine how staff training would best be delivered until the main works programme is complete. We have examined Queen Elizabeth Park barracks at Guildford and the royal military academy Sandhurst as possible options for an interim site for the JSCSC as well as split site options, but work to date indicates that RAF Bracknell is likely to be the most appropriate and cost-effective temporary site.

  There will be some additional costs in establishing the JSCSC at an interim site and I will publish these once the formal appraisal of the options is complete. It will, however, enable us to avoid delay in introducing this key change to officer training, and, on current evidence, is also likely to be significantly cheaper than running on the existing staff colleges.
  444
  Details of the studies into the JSCSC are as follows:

  £ thousand

  Subject

  Consultant

  Cost

  JSCSC options study locations for JSCSC

  Building design partnership

  43

  Further investigations of Camberley site

  Building design partnership

  10

  Detailed work to develop JSCSC proposals at Camberley

  White Young (works project manager)

  328

  Site options within Camberley for junior college

  Cecil Denny Heighton

  12

  Options for interim sites (not yet complete)

  Campbell Reith Hill

  115

  1 Estimate.

  Royal Flights
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of the sum spent by his Department on royal flights in civil aircraft in 1994–95. [14894]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence arranges commercial air travel for certain members of the royal family where such travel is made on official business and where a commercial aircraft would provide a more appropriate form of transport than a military aircraft. The details for 1994–95 are:

  Destination

  Cost £

  Member of the Royal Family

  Brasilia

  127,545

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  Zimbabwe

  23,245

  HRH The Princess of Wales

  Geneva

  21,445

  HRH The Princess of Wales

  Los Angeles and Hong Kong

  82,410

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  Japan

  324,906

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  Total

  4160,000

  HRH The Princess of Wales

  1 Relates to a visit made in an earlier financial year.

  2 Amount covers 2 separate visits.

  3 Amount covers the outward leg of the journey only. Payment for the return leg will fall in financial year 1995–96.

  4 Rounded to nearest £ thousand

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which members of the Government used the services of No. 32 (the Royal) Squadron in 1994–95 and the Queen's Flight in 1993–94. [14812]

  Mr. Soames
  The following members of the Government used the services of the Queen's Flight in financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95:

  1993–94

  Prime Minister;

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs;

  Secretary of State for Defence;

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland;

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement;

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence.

  445

  1994–95

  Prime Minister;

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs;

  Secretary of State for Defence;

  Secretary of state for Northern Ireland;

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces.

  No. 32 (the Royal) Squadron was not formed until 1 April 1995.

  Munitions Exports (Form F680)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature and number of missiles and munitions involved and their destination country, together with the country named as an end user on each occasion Ministers or officials in his Department signed form F680 since 1985 covering the export of munitions or missiles having either a nuclear conversion capability or a nuclear engineered version. [14856]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 7 February,Official Report, columns 247–48.

  Unexploded Bombs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the procedures to be followed by construction companies on(a) private sector building contracts and (b) Government contracts, when they discover unexploded bombs and other ordnance material in the course of excavation or other work; and if he will make a statement. [14303]

  Mr. Soames
  Any building contractor discovering a suspected piece of unexploded ordnance should immediately contact the local police, who, after conducting a risk assessment, will request assistance from the joint services EOD operations centre at Didcot. A service explosive ordnance team will be tasked to deal with the item.

  International Criminal Tribunal
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops serving with the implementation force are under orders to co-operate with the international criminal tribunal; if this co-operation extends to(a) searching for, (b) reporting, (c) detaining and (d) handing over any persons suspected of committing crimes within the jurisdiction of the tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [14315]

  Mr. Soames
  NATO and IFOR fully support the efforts of the United Nations tribunal, which is responsible for investigating war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and bringing to justice those individuals indicted by the tribunal. IFOR has clear instructions to pass on to the tribunal any information it acquires about indicted war criminals, to detain any such individuals encountered during operations and to transfer them immediately to the tribunal. It is not part of IFOR's mandate to search for these individuals. The chief prosecutor of the tribunal has said that he is satisfied with the level of support offered by IFOR and has agreed that this should be provided within the limits of its mandate and available resources.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what countries(a) the Ranger or (b) the Barmine mine systems have been exported. [14556]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It remains Government policy normally not to reveal details of specific exports. However, we have not exported land mines for over a decade.

  Asbestos
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to expedite the processing of compensation claims relating to asbestos injuries relating to the work of his Department. [14349]

  Mr. Soames
  Claims for compensation from MOD civilian employees, both past and present, for asbestos-related illness are dealt with on our behalf by an insurance company. Neither the company nor the Ministry of Defence is aware of any unwarranted delay in settling these claims. However, if the hon. Member has specific cases in mind I should be glad to take them up.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the costs incurred by his Department in chartering merchant vessels to transport British troops and equipment to the IFOR operation in Bosnia. [14602]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of chartering merchant vessels for the IFOR operation is £483,599.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by name of vessel and flag of registration the merchant vessels chartered by his Department to transport British troops and equipment to the IFOR operation in Bosnia. [14603]

  Mr. Soames
  The names and flags of registration of merchant vessels chartered for the IFOR operation are as follows:

  Yuriy Maksaryov: Ukrainian

  Elein K: Cypriot

  Women Officers (Pregnancy)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to public funds to date of compensating serving women who lost their service careers through pregnancy. [14008]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 5 February 1996, £5,704,197 has been paid to 342 officers discharged on grounds of pregnancy between 1978 and 1990—an average of £16,678 each.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 985, what is (a) the full complement deployment of the two Trident submarines currently operational and (b) the full potential complement for HMS Victorious; for what reason there is a difference between these figures and the number of missiles collected by his Department

  447
  for deployment on (i) the two submarines and (ii) HMS Victorious. [14292]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Each of our Trident submarines is capable of carrying 16 missiles. To date, we have collected 32 missiles from the US, of which four have been test fired. I am not prepared to give details of missile deployment.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 985, if HMS Vigilant and HMS Vengeance will each need to conduct two test firings of Trident missiles before entering operational service. [14290]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is the norm for each strategic submarine ballistic nuclear to conduct at least one test firing, as part of its demonstration and shakedown operation, before its entry into operational service. The actual number fired will depend on a variety of factors, including the requirement to gather launch data for various modelling purposes.

  Aircraft Sales (Indonesia and Nigeria)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current policy on the sale of(a) aircraft and (b) other armaments to Indonesia and Nigeria. [14345]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is the Government's policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. All licence applications for the export of defence equipment are considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria, including the international guidelines to which we are committed. In particular, we do not export defence equipment that is likely to be used for internal repression.

  In the case of Nigeria, the Prime Minister announced a full UK arms embargo against the Nigerian military on 11 November 1995. On 20 November 1995, the European Union adopted a full scope EU-wide arms embargo against the Nigerian regimes.

  Equerries
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 537, if he will list the differences between the stated duties of equerries and those of other staff responsible for visits, engagements and dealing with routine correspondence. [14888]

  Mr. Soames
  Equerries provide support across the full range of activities undertaken by members of the royal family but they have special responsibilities relating to the many ceremonies and military events in which the Queen, as head of the armed services, and other members of the royal family participate at home and abroad.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Deregulation
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultation he is undertaking with small and medium enterprises regarding deregulation. [13058]
  448
  Mr. Freeman
  I have regular meetings with various representative bodies of small and medium businesses about deregulation. I have invited all businesses, including members of the Federation of Small Businesses, to write to me with details of those regulations which are unnecessarily hampering their business and have so far received over 400 replies. I am also responsible for implementing the small business litmus test, which requires all Government Departments to consult some typical small businesses to ensure they will not be disproportionately affected by proposed regulations.

  Fire Safety Legislation and Enforcement
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish his response to the recommendations made by the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement. [14670]

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will announce his response to the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement. [14595]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish the response of the Government to the recommendations contained in the report of the interdepartmental review team into fire safety legislation and enforcement. [14846]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to respond to the recommendations of the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement in the United Kingdom. [14796]

  Mr. Willets
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 8 February, 1996,Official Report, column 283.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14020]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service make available internal guidance and administrative manuals in line with the Government's code of practice on access to Government information. A significant number of such documents have been published, including:

  Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: Guidance on Interpretation.

  Civil Service Code.

  Civil Service Management Code.

  Departmental Report.

  NDPBs: A Guide to Departments.

  The Ombudsman in Your Files.

  The Governments Guide to Market Testing.

  Efficiency plans: Guidance for Development and Use.

  Efficiency Scrutinies: Guidance for Ministers and Managers, Action Managers and Scrutiny Teams.

  CCTA's Total Acquisition Process Guidance.

  A Guide on Public Appointments Procedures.

  A Review of Guidance on Public Appointments.

  449

  Dear Publisher Letter.

  Dear Librarian Letter.

  Dear Establishment Officer Letter.

  Copyright: A brief guide for Government Departments.

  HMSO catalogues.

  Agencies' annual reports.

  Agencies' framework documents.

  This is not a complete list, as there is no central record of manuals made public, nor of those where disclosure is not in the public interest.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [11507]

  Mr. Willetts
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 February 1996, c. 203–04]: I regret that the figure quoted on total expenditure by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's office and the Office of Public Service, and its executive agencies, excluding HMSO and the Buying Agency, on overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses of £1,178,000 in 1993–94 was incorrect. The correct figure should have been £1,850,000.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  "Tackling Drugs Together"
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent consultations he has had with ministerial colleagues about the implementation of "Tackling Drugs Together"; and if he will make a statement. [13065]

  Mr. Newton
  I have received regular progress reports on the implementation of "Tackling Drugs Together" from ministerial colleagues. I am pleased to say that all Departments are on track with their major White Paper commitments. For example, the Department of Health has launched a £5 million per annum publicity strategy, run by the Health Education Authority; the Department for Education and Employment has disseminated guidance on drugs issues to all schools; and all criminal justice agencies have completed their operational reviews and are on track to produce their drug strategies in line with the White Paper. In addition, 105 drug action teams have been set up across England to tackle the drugs problem at local level, and have submitted their first plans.

SCOTLAND

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on official hospitality by agencies associated with his Department in 1993–94, 1994–95 and projected for 1995–96. [9091]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table.450

  Agency

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Projected budget 1995–96 £

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  2,232

  628

  1,000

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  700

  1,015

  1,015

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  6,341

  4,973

  3,889

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  —

  332

  215

  Historic Scotland

  4,687

  8,538

  4,500

  Scottish Courts Service

  —

  —

  2,100

  Scottish Prison Service

  4,000

  6,000

  8,000

  Scottish Record Office

  185

  117

  1,166

  Registers of Scotland

  6,000

  7,000

  7,250

  Total

  24,145

  28,603

  29,135

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 817, if the figures for hospitality spending in 1994–95 and 1995–96 included expenditure by his Department's agencies. [9092]

  Mr. Forsyth
  No. Moreover, it has come to my attention that the information provided in my answer of 14 December was in other respects incomplete. This arose from a misunderstanding of the implications of a change made in the financial year 1990–91 to the arrangements for recording hospitality expenditure by my Department.

  The corrected information is as follows:

  1994–95: £79,510

  1995–96: £89,868 (Projected outturn)1

  Note:

  1 In addition, in 1995–96, the Scottish Office spent £34,680 on hospitality as part of the Government's contribution to the VE-day and VJ-day commemorations.

  I regret that, for the same reason, information previously provided to hon. Members on hospitality expenditure for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 was similarly incomplete. The correct information for these years is as follows:

  1991–92: £83,836

  1992–93: £125,118

  1993–94: £76,088

  Farm Holdings
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of farm holdings in Scotland, the number of(a) self-employed and (b) employed people working in Scottish agriculture, and the number of people employed in agricultural contract work (i) in 1978 and (ii) in the most recent year for which figures are available. [11967]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information required is shown in the table. The data on farm holdings and the farm work force are from the June agricultural census of main holdings and the information on agricultural contractors' employees is drawn from the March 1980—the nearest date to 1978—machinery census and the April 1994 survey of agricultural contractors.
  451

  1978

  1995

  Number of holdings

  31,090

  32,800

  Occupiers

  23,600

  21,700

  Spouses

  8,000

  12,000

  Employees

  40,600

  25,600

  Figures rounded to nearest 100.

  1980

  1994

  Contractors' employees

  960

  1,090

  Figures rounded to nearest 10.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11408]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Following is the information:

  Year

  The Scottish Office £

  Scottish Office Agencies £

  1979–80

  15,283

  Not applicable

  1989–90

  60,173

  Not applicable

  1919–92

  83,836

  5,700

  1993–94

  76,088

  24,145

  1994–95

  79,510

  28,603

  1995–96 (estimate)

  189,868

  29,135

  1996–97 (estimate)

  86,400

  26,825

  1 In addition, in 1995–96, the Scottish Office spent £34,680 on hospitality as part of the Government's contribution to the VE-day and VJ-day commemorations.

  Information on hospitality spending by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost

  Prison Service
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of the prison population in Scotland is currently held in(a) secure prisons and (b) open prisons and related units; [14004]

  (2) how many prisoners are currently held in open prisons and related units in Scotland. [14006]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the questions relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 12 February 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your two Questions relating to the current prison population in Scotland.
  The information as at Friday 2 February 1996 is given in the table.
  452

  Number of prisoners

  Percentage1

  Secure establishments

  Aberdeen

  173

  3

  Barlinnie

  1,070

  20

  Cornton Vale

  171

  3

  Dumfries

  135

  2

  Edinburgh

  593

  11

  Friarton

  65

  1

  Glenochil

  531

  10

  Greenock

  230

  4

  Inverness

  122

  2

  Longriggend

  155

  3

  Low Moss

  319

  6

  Perth

  456

  8

  Peterhead

  194

  4

  Peterhead Unit

  4

  2

  Polmont

  415

  8

  Shotts

  448

  8

  Shotts Unit

  9

  2

  National Induction Centre, Shotts

  27

  2

  Sub-total

  5,117

  93

  Open establishments

  Castle Huntly

  105

  2

  Dungavel

  89

  2

  Noranside

  114

  2

  Penninghame

  59

  1

  Sub-total

  367

  7

  Total

  5,484

  100

  1 Components may not add to totals due to rounding.

  2 Less than 0.5.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the relative cost and latest estimate of keeping a prisoner in(a) secure prisons establishments and (b) open prisons and related units. [14005]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 12 February 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the relative cost and latest estimate of keeping a prisoner in (a) secure prison establishments and (b) open prisons and related units.
  The average cost per prisoner place at HMP Prisons in Scotland in 1994–95 was £23,324 for secure prisons and £18,046 for open prisons and is estimated to be £23,217 and £18,150 respectively in 1995–96. This has been calculated as total net expenditure (excluding capital, Headquarters and other central costs) divided by the average number of places available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources have been made available to the Scottish Prison Service in each of the last two financial years; what resources are proposed for the next financial year to support the drug reduction and rehabilitation programme; and if he will make a statement. [14581]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.
  453
  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. James Wallace, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive, Mr Frizzell, to reply to your Question about resources made available to the Scottish Prison Service in each of the last two financial years and resources for drug reduction and rehabilitation programmes in 1996–97. I am replying to his absence from the office.
  The total net resources made available to the Scottish Prison Service was £162.5 million in 1994–95 (of which £15.4 million was capital) and £166.0 million in 1995–96 (of which £16.8 million was capital). The total net resources for 1996–97 is £173.9 million (of which £16.8 million is capital). Resources for 1996–97 will be allocated to governors of establishments on the basis of their strategic plans for all purposes: provision for drug reduction and rehabilitation programmes is not separately identified but is taken into account as appropriate in the budgets allocated for staffing, medical expenses etc.

  Health Boards (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the administrative costs of health boards expressed as a percentage of the total spend for each of the last five financial years for which figures are available. [14133]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is shown in the table. The figures have been calculated using audited annual accounts of health boards. From 1992–93 onwards, the percentage decreases relative to total spend are due to an increasing proportion of NHS administration costs being attributable to NHS trusts. The figures are not therefore directly comparable.

  1990–91: 7.6 per cent.

  1991–92: 7.4 per cent.

  1992–93: 8.0 per cent.

  1993–94: 6.0 per cent.

  1994–95: 3.4 per cent.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors determine the dates on which he(a) closes applications for financial assistance under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance and (b) announces the award of grant; and when he expects to give his decision in respect of applications for financial assistance under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance submitted for consideration in the current round. [14134]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The financial instrument for fisheries guidance—FIFG—schemes opened on 1 July 1994 and applications may be submitted at any time. However, to allow sufficient time to appraise, consult and select the best applications, only applications submitted earlier than three months prior to the planned announcement of awards are considered in that tranche. The timing of each tranche is determined by the number of applications and the total amount of grant sought, the quality of applications, and the availability of funds at the appropriate time to service successful projects.

  The present intention is that the next round of FIFG awards will be announced in June 1996.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been(a) the grant value and (b) the number of applications for financial assistance under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance currently
  454
  lodged with his Department which (i) have been received since the present round opened and (ii) have been carried over from an earlier round. [14136]

  Mr. Robertson
  There have been 42 applications seeking grant totalling £5,031,319 since the last tranche closed. In addition, there are 50 applicants carried over from previous rounds seeking grant of £7,765,172.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his oral answer of 5 February 1996,Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, column 6, if he will relax his policy of non-disclosure in respect of the location and current possession of the timing device; and if he will make a statement. [14544]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made it quite clear that he cannot discuss evidence in the case.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to general practitioner fundholders via their health boards concerning the placing of contracts for their long waiting list patients with individual private consultants and the British United Provident Association; if he will place a copy of such guidance in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [14883]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific guidance on this matter has been issued to general practitioner fundholders.

  Glasgow Zoo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) to which organisations CITES-listed animals from Glasgow zoo have been transferred; [14777]

  (2) if he will set up an inquiry into the transfer of ocelots, Geoffrey's cats and margay cats from Glasgow zoo to other organisations. [14776]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and my right hon. Friend has no reason to set up an inquiry. The Department of the Environment has issued Glasgow zoo with sales exemptions in relation to several ocelots, geffroy cats and margay cats, all of which are CITES listed animals. These exemptions allow Glasgow zoo to sell the animals within the UK. There is no requirement for the zoo to specify the destination of the animals.

HEALTH

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the appeals procedure for members of the NHS pension scheme who have been refused pension benefits after submitting positive medical evidence that they can no longer follow their regular employment. [13568]
  455
  Mr. Malone
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  There are no formal rights of appeal, but members of the NHS Pension Scheme have a number of avenues for challenging a decision affecting their pension rights. The NHS Pensions Agency operates it own internal procedures, involving reviews through senior officers not involved in the original decision. In ill-health retirement cases, where the Agency's medical advisors are unable to recommend acceptance of an application, they will at any time reconsider against further medical evidence.
  If in any case a member remains dissatisfied with the Agency's decision they can request a formal determination by the Secretary of State, under Regulation U2 of the NHS Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 [SI 1995 No. 300]. If the dispute relates to a divergence of medical opinion it would be usual to seek an independent specialist's report before making a determination. Determinations are handled outside the Agency, by the NHS Executive.
  If the member remains discontent they have the right to raise their complaint with the Occupational Pensions Advisory Board and the Pensions Ombudsman. The findings of the Ombudsman are binding upon the Scheme and may only be overturned by a High Court ruling.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the trustees of the NHS pension scheme. [13570]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service pension scheme is a notionally funded statutory scheme set up under the provisions of sections 10 and 12 of the Superannuation Act 1972 and therefore does not have trustees.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the qualified medical advisors who advise on the payment of NHS pension benefits to NHS employees who are unable to continue their work because of illness. [13565]

  Mr. Malone
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  The NHS Pensions Agency receives independent medical advice under an agreement from BA Medical Services, part of the Department of Social Security. BAMS employ only registered full-time and sessional doctors to co-ordinate and provide advice to the NHS Pensions Agency. In doing so they may seek views of professional colleagues both inside and externally in order to reach consensus medical opinion on advice appropriate to each case.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the NHS pension scheme who have had their application for retirement pension payment on ill health grounds turned down by his Department or the NHS executive have been the subject of an 456
  independent specialist medical report; and if he will make a statement. [13569]

  Mr. Malone
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  I am afraid I cannot provide information in the form requested except at disproportionate cost, because it would require a review of the files of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the procedure for applicants who apply for pension rights under the NHS pension scheme for a medical examination by the medical advisers appointed by his Department. [13567]

  Mr. Malone
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 12 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  In order to approve the award of an ill-health pension the NHS Pensions Agency must be satisfied that the illness will permanently prevent the member continuing in their employment. Applications must, therefore be supported by medical evidence. The type of evidence is not currently prescribed, but in all cases the Agency will seek advice upon it from its independent medical advisers, the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS). Where it is appropriate, BAMS may seek a specialists report to augment the initial evidence. If BAMS cannot advise that the illness will permanently prevent the member continuing in their employment the Agency will usually reject the application, but procedures currently allow for the submission of further medical evidence at any time. This always leads reconsideration of the case by BAMS. I should add that once an ill-health pension is awarded, the Agency has no powers to withdraw it.

  Northern RHA Headquarters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on repairs, maintenance and improvement of the former Northern regional health authority headquarters at Benfield road, Newcastle, since January 1986; who owns the building; when it will be vacated; and what receipts from the sale of the lease or freehold of this building will be released. [13731]

  Mr. Malone
  Capital expenditure on repairs, maintenance and improvement of the former Northern regional health authority headquarters at Benfield road, Newcastle since 1986 totals £896,500, mostly before 1992. The building is owned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Following the move of the staff from Benfield road to Durham in Spring 1996, the building will be occupied by Newcastle and North Tyneside district health authority, and North Tyneside family health services authority— Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority from 1 April 1996—who had previously occupied four separate

  457
  buildings in Newcastle and north Tyneside. As the property will remain in use for health service accommodation, there will be no receipts for the sale of the freehold.

  Waiting List Helplines
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding was given to waiting list helplines in each of the last five years. [14055]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1992–93, the College of Health received £25,600 in support of the development of a national waiting list clearing house which encompassed a telephone helpline. A further £109,750 was allocated to the project in 1993–94.

  Waiting times information is now available to the public on a freephone telephone link—0800 66 55 44— through the health information services which were established in 1993. For details of the funding for health information services, which is the responsibility of regional health authorities, I refer the hon. Member to thereply I gave the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 25 January, Official Report, column 377.

  Patient Referrals
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what differences apply in relation to the options available to(a) fundholders and (b) non-fundholders when referring patients for treatment. [14063]

  Mr. Malone
  The difference between fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners is the freedom fundholders have to manage resources and directly to purchase the care they judge best on their patients' behalf.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will be making a statement on the content of the executive letter to the national health service in November concerning new drugs for multiple sclerosis. [14093]

  (2) if he will set out the guidelines which has been issued to authorities regarding the prescription of interferon-beta-lb for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. [14091]

  Mr. Malone
  Executive letter EL(95)97 about the introduction of beta-interferon drugs for multiple sclerosis was issued on 15 November 1995. It suggested that beta-interferon should be prescribed by hospital neurologists where clinically appropriate. The guidance was accompanied by clinical advice from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Hospices
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his policy on the provision of health authority funds to hospices; and if he will make a statement; [14109]

  (2) what regulations or agreements cover the provision of NHS funds to assist in the running costs of hospices. [14108]
  458
  Mr. Horam
  As with other services, health authorities have a duty to ensure that specialist palliative care services, including hospice care, are in line with the assessed health needs of their populations. Since 1994–95, funding for specialist palliative care has been built into health authorities' general funding allocations. Those providing the care, including hospices, receive funding from health authorities according to their contracts. The level and form of financial support is a matter for local negotiation.

  Accident and Emergency Services (Private Hospitals)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of private hospitals provide full accident and emergency services. [14107]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected.

  Drugs (Side-effects)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued in respect of side-effect warnings for(a) doctor-prescribed drugs and (b) drugs bought across the counter. [14057]

  Mr. Malone
  No guidelines have been issued. However all medicines have data sheets which give details of side-effect. New medicines now have patient information leaflets which also give this information, and all other medicines will have such a leaflet by 1998. Information on side-effects of medicines is also available in the "British National Formulary", which is provided free to all doctors by the Department of Health.

  In addition, all health professionals are sent the bulletin from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", four times a year and the bulletin "Update" from the Chief Medical Officer, which contain information on the safe use of medicines whether they are prescribed by a doctor or brought over-the-counter. Both the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Chief Medical Officer may also send out letters of advice to health professionals on specific issues as they arise.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what duty a doctor has in relation to informing patients about the side-effects. of drugs. [14058]

  Mr. Malone
  Doctors have an ethical responsibility to inform patients about the treatment proposed, including the effects of prescribed medicines.

  Renal Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place a copy of the review of renal services commissioned by his Department in the Library; [14562]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the review of renal services; and if he will make a statement. [14563]

  Mr. Horam
  We are still considering the review of renal services, including the question of publication, and intend to issue purchasing guidelines in time for the next contracting round.

  Steroid Treatment (Deaths)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have died as a result of steroid treatment in each of the last five years. [14059]

  Mr. Horam
  Deaths in England and Wales due to adrenal cortical steroids—ICD1 E932.0—causing adverse effects in therapeutic use, as an underlying or secondary cause of death2

  Underlying cause

  Secondary cause

  Total

  1988

  0

  9

  9

  1989

  0

  9

  9

  1990

  1

  9

  10

  1991

  1

  7

  8

  1992

  0

  5

  5

  1 International Classification of diseases, 9th Revision.

  2 Does not include adverse effects from androgens and anabolic congeners (ICD E932.1) or ovarian hormones

  Drugs Prescription
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if a drug which has been given market authorisation to be prescribed can be prevented from being administered to patients if the national health service executive so wishes; [14094]

  (2) in what circumstances the national health service executive can restrict the prescription of a drug which has received market authorisation. [14092]

  Mr. Malone
  Doctors have the clinical freedom to prescribe the drugs their patients need, whether or not the product has a marketing authorisation or product licence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under the National Health Service Act 1977 to list in schedules 10 and 11 of the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 drugs or other substances which are not to be prescribed, or which are to be prescribed only in certain circumstances, by general practitioners under the NHS. Drugs or other substances can be included in these schedules on the advice of the Advisory Committee for NHS Drugs and the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances.

  Doctor Recruitment
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount of money paid by NHS trusts to agencies for the purpose of recruiting doctors in each year since 1985. [14106]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of trusts at local level to decide whether or not they wish to use an employment agency for the purpose of recruiting doctors.

  Hospital staff in England—as at 30 September 1994 Paediatrics—vacant consultant posts

  All vacant posts

  Locum occupied

  Unoccupied

  Consultants

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Paediatrics

  21

  20.6

  5

  5.0

  16

  15.6

  Paediatric neurology

  1

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  —

  —

  Total

  22

  21.6

  6

  6.0

  16

  15.6

  WTE = whole time equivalents.

  Accident and Emergency Units (Doctors)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts which in the past 12 months used recruitment agencies to hire doctors on short-term contracts to work in accident and emergency units. [14104]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of trusts at local level to decide whether or not they wish to use an employment agency.

  Social Services Information
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has given local authorities advice on the purchase of social service information database systems. [14098]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department has issued in various contexts advice on the importance of soundly based local information systems, and has provided nearly £50 million of supplementary credit approvals in cash terms over the period 1991–92 to 1995–96 for the purchase of computers and systems as part of the implementation of "Caring of People". The Department has also from time to time supported projects to develop information systems of use to social services departments, but in all cases decision to purchase a system is one for individual authorities to take.

  Empty Buildings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many empty buildings his Department currently owns; what is the cost of insuring and securing these buildings; how many were designed as residential properties; and what was the total amount spent by his Department on empty property taxes in each of the last five years. [14572]

  Mr. Horam
  The buildings occupied by the Department of Health are part of the Government common user estate. Vacant buildings on the common user estate are the responsibility of Property Holdings. Over the last five years, the Department of Health has not incurred any costs in respect of empty taxes on the common user estate.

  Paediatric Consultant Posts
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS paediatric consultant posts are(a) currently unfilled or (b) filled by a locum; and how many of the vacant posts have been unfilled for (i) six months, (ii) 12 months, (iii) 18 months and (iv) 24 months. [14525]

  Mr. Malone
  Data are not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the table.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he ensures that the negotiating brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13715]

  Mr. Horam
  Guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating EC regulations is contained in the booklet "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has been supplemented by the recent publication of guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments, which stresses that the likely burdens on business highlighted by United Kingdom compliance cost assessment of EC proposals should be integral to the UK's negotiating strategy. Copies of both pieces of guidance are in the Library.

  Unsafe Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory responsibility applies to the licensing authority in respect of the protection of public health from unsafe medicines. [14296]

  Mr. Malone
  Functions of the competent authorities of member states in respect of the licensing of medicinal products for human use are laid down in directive 65/65/EEC and subsequent EC legislation. For the United Kingdom, these functions fall to the licensing authority and these obligations and licensing requirements are set out in SI 1994/3144, the Medicines Acts and other relevant subordinate legislation. The requirements are intended to ensure that unsafe medicines are not marketed, and to safeguard public health.

  Refugee and Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the services of(a) NHS general practitioners and (b) health visitors are available to refugee and asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [14492]

  Mr. Malone
  Refugees and asylum seekers have access to any NHS services which are immediately required.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the risks posed by(a) second and (b) third generation oral contraceptives. [14293]

  Mr. Malone
  The safety of second and third generation combined oral contraceptives has been assessed according to normal procedures over a period of many years since they were first marketed. In October 1995, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, an independent expert advisory committee which advises the licensing authority, reviewed the safety of these oral contraceptives after new evidence about the cardiovascular risks associated with them became available. I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in the House on 23 October 1995,Official Report, columns 701–02.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the licensing authority will vary the product licences of combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and gestodene. [14295]
  462
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1149.

  Paracetamol Deaths
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths attributable to paracetamol were reported via the yellow card system for each year from 1990 to 1995; and what proportion of fatal reports received these deaths represented for each year. [14294]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Suspected adverse reaction reports to the Committee on Safety of Medicines from 1990–1995 related to the use of paracetamol and all drugs in the United Kingdom

  Year received

  Reports with a fatal outcome where paracetamol is a suspect drug (percentage of all fatal)

  All reports where paracetamol is a suspect drug

  Total number of reports to all human medicinal products with a fatal outcome

  Total number of reports

  1990

  3(0.91)

  65

  328

  17,963

  1991

  2(0.43)

  56

  467

  19,492

  1992

  1(0.22)

  60

  455

  20,184

  1993

  3(0.64)

  60

  471

  18,082

  1994

  1(0.25)

  43

  408

  17,566

  1995

  3(0.63)

  49

  476

  17,749

  The table provides information on the numbers of reports of suspected adverse drug reactions received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines from health professionals over the period 1990–1995. This includes the number of reports associated with paracetamol and with all drugs and the number associated with a fatal outcome. A report does not necessarily mean that the reaction was caused by the drug. Many factors influence reporting rate, comparisons across drugs may therefore be misleading.

  Bradford Health Commission
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the name of the chairman of the Bradford health commission. [14468]

  Mr. Horam
  Mrs. Zahida Manzoor was named as chairman of the proposed Bradford health authority in a press release issued by the Northern and Yorkshire regional office of the NHS executive on 21 December 1995.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 810, when information on GP fundholding savings will be available. [14890]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about fundholder efficiency savings for 1994–95 will not be available until final audits are completed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to general practitioner fundholders via their family health service authorities concerning the placing of contracts for their long waiting list patients with individual private consultants and
  463
  BUPA; and if he will place a copy of such guidance notes in the Library. [14884]

  Mr. Malone
  The 1994 review of contracting guidance, which was issued to general practitioner fundholders, as well as district health authorities, encourages them to secure the best quality and value for money services possible from either NHS or independent sector providers. A copy of the guidance, EL(93)103, is in the Library.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average cost of a psychiatric bed in each year since 1980. [14876]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.

  Average cost of a psychiatric bed in the Hospital and Community Health Services in each year since 1980.

  Year

  Unit cost £

  1980–81

  16,600

  1981–82

  17,000

  1982–83

  17,000

  1983–84

  17,500

  1984–85

  18,300

  1985–86

  18,800

  1986–87

  20,500

  1987–88

  24,000

  1988–89

  26,300

  1989–90

  27,500

  1990–91

  28,700

  1991–92

  36,200

  1992–93

  38,500

  1993–94

  39,500

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest £100 and are expressed in real terms at 1993–94 prices using the gross domestic product deflators issued by Treasury on 20 November 1995.

  2. Unit costs are calculated by dividing expenditure by available beds in the mental health sector of Hospital and Community Services.

  3. Figures for 1991–92 onwards cannot be compared with those for earlier years due to changes in accounting practices following the NHS reforms.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates the level of savings to be from psychiatric bed closures since 1986. [14877]

  Mr. Bowis
  The reprovision programme for mental health has been geared to improved care and treatment of mentally ill patients. Closure or adaptations of old-style long-stay hospitals have resulted in resources being available for the provision of a spectrum of care, including new long-stay beds, hospitals, hostel and supported accommodation and services to support patients in home and homely settings. It is not possible to estimate an exact figure for this.

  Clinical Negligence Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those trusts which(a) are and (b) are not members of the clinical negligence scheme in each region. [14774]

  Mr. Malone
  The latest information will be placed in the Library.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people his Department estimates need access to medium-secure psychiatric care; and how many beds are available in each region. [14878]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Glancy committee in 1974 recommended a total of 1,000 medium secure beds. By 1979, there were none provided. We are now on target to reach a total of 1,200 places in medium-secure units by the end of this year. A further 300 secure places are being developed from the mainstream NHS capital programme. In addition, there are about 450 places in other secure units and some 400 NHS-purchased places in the independent sector.

  Assessment of further local needs is the responsibilities of the health authorities concerned.

  For the number of beds in each NHS region, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 5 February, Official Report, columns 19–20.

  Registered Homes (Police Checks)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that owners, managers and staff of registered homes for the elderly are subject to police checks. [14874]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Registered Homes Act 1984 requires local and health authorities to ensure that anyone running or intending to run a residential care or nursing home is suitable to do so. Departmental guidance has been issued about procedures for making criminal checks on applicants for registration as owners or managers of homes. Regulations under the Act require anyone running a home to provide adequate and suitable staff, and it is for employers to ensure that procedures are in place for vetting prospective employees.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 531, when he will make available the special transitional grant figures. [14892]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Audit Commission is following up the outstanding audited returns for the 1994–95 special transitional grant. Final figures will not be available until all returns have been received and any queries raised by the auditors resolved with the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish indicative budgets for the special transitional grant in 1996–97; and what conditions will be applied to it. [14875]

  Mr. Bowis
  Indicative allocations of the special transitional grant for 1996–97 were issued to local authorities on 30 November. The conditions to be attached to the special transitional grant for 1996–97 will be announced shortly.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review his policy that, in the
  465
  event of a doctor being instructed by a local authority to carry out the examination of a child for signs of sexual abuse, the doctor does not owe a duty of care to the child or parents; and if he will make a statement. [14724]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is a matter of law, not policy, as set out in the judgment in the House of Lords in the case of M(A minor) and Another v. Newham London borough council that the doctor's duties in such cases are to the local authority by whom he is instructed.

  Consultants Complaints Procedure
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review his policy that, under the hospital consultants complaints procedure, a complaint to the health service commissioner about a consultant's clinical judgment cannot progress to stage 3 if the consultant in question does not agree to co-operate; and if he will make a statement. [14725]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the existing legislation, the Health Service Commissioner may not investigate a complaint about action arising solely from the exercise of clinical judgment. The Government have introduced a Bill to extend the commissioner's jurisdiction to cover complaints about clinical judgment, and this is being considered currently by Parliament. The commissioner has wide-ranging powers to require co-operation with his investigations where necessary. There are no plans to change this.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 373, what has been the annual expenditure on mental health services in each year since 1988–89 in each region. [14889]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bolton Hospitals
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) administrative and (b) medical staff were on the staff of each Bolton hospital in each of the last five years. [10465]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The number of staff in each Bolton hospital is not available centrally.

  Bolton Hospitals national health service trust attained trust attained trust status in April 1994. The only year for which administrative and clerical staff figures are available is 1994. Before then, administrative and clerical staff at the district health authority provided some services to directly managed units and so comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  The number of administrative and clerical staff is collected by the Department of Health's non-medical work force census. The census results are published at national level in a statistical bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library. Regional tables for the 1994 census will also be placed in the Library shortly. Results are not normally published below regional level but are
  466
  available on request for 1994 at health authority, trust or directly managed unit level. Only limited detailed figures are available for earlier years.

  Figures for medical staff are collected by the Department of Health's medical and dental work force census. Since some medical staff are reported at regional level rather than by the individual organisations for which they work it is not possible to identify all medical staff in individual organisations. The results of the medical and dental work force census are available at national and regional level in the Library.
  References:

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census: 95/18;

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census: 1994/11;

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census: 13/93;

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census: 1/93;

  DH Statistical Bulletin 1995/14: Medical and Dental Workforce Census 1984–1994;

  DH Hospital Medical Staff—England and Wales Regional Tables 30 September 1994.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will name the consortia bidding to act as prime contractors for the automated benefit payment scheme; when he will make a final decision on the contract; who will be the first group to receive the card; and when the system will become fully operational. [11752]

  Mr. Heald
  The final three shortlisted service providers are; Cardlink, UK, IBM and Pathway. Subject to a successful completion of the procurement process, we expect to award a contract by late spring. Our current planning assumption is that the first group to be issued with a benefit payment card will be child benefit customers, although this may be subject to change. It is expected that the first payments by card will be made in the autumn with full roll-out taking up to three years from that date.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the proposed social security smart card will bear a photograph of the claimant and have a memory capacity. [14862]

  Mr. Heald
  The card technology and security features are a matter for the supplier under the private finance initiative.

  Decisions will not be finalised until a successful supplier is chosen. It is not mandatory for the initial version to be a smart card, but there will be provision to migrate to a smart card technology in the future if required.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the possession of a nursery voucher will have(a) on a claimant's entitlement to income-related benefits and (b) on the child care disregard under family credit and disability working allowance. [13094]
  467
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Possession of nursery education vouchers will not generally affect entitlement to income-related benefits. In family credit and disability working allowance, parents will continue to be eligible for help with the child care charges for which they pay, subject to the normal qualifying conditions.

  Office Thefts
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number and (b) the value of items of equipment and furniture that have been (i) stolen and (ii) are otherwise unaccounted for from (1) DSS offices and (2) executive agency offices in each region, for each of the last five years; and if he will list by name those items valued at £5,000 or more. [13088]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Department of Social Security does not separately maintain centralised records of individual items stolen. Losses due to theft, fraud, arson or sabotage are recorded in a single category. The number of individual losses recorded within this category, and the total value for each of the last five years is in the table:

  Financial year

  Number of individual cases

  Total value £

  1990–91

  364

  89,799

  1991–92

  411

  72,315

  1992–93

  94

  84,500

  1993–94

  192

  222,382

  1994–95

  360

  851,020

  The estimated total value of the Department's tangible fixed assets, excluding land and buildings, is approximately £330 million for 1994–95.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the savings to his Department resulting from the contracting out of the Benefits Agency medical service. [14769]

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible at this stage to estimate the precise level of savings. However, experience of similar exercises within the Department has identified that both savings and a better service for customers are achieved by competitively tendering the service.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support payable with a disability premium also receive housing benefit; and what is the average amount payable. [14775]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A total of 460,000 recipients of income support payable with a disability premium were also receiving housing benefit at an average weekly rate of £39.02 in May 1994, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry, taken May 1994.
  468
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support receive housing benefit; and what is the average amount payable. [14772]

  Mr. Evans
  In August 1995, the latest date for which information is available, 3.1 million income support recipients were receiving housing benefit, at an average weekly rate of £45.14.

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system 100 per cent. quarterly caseload count taken August 1995.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently claiming family credit; and what are(a) the total administration costs and (b) the average weekly administration cost per beneficiary. [14773]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As at 30 April 1995, 606,000 families were receiving family credit. The estimated total administration costs for 1993–94, the latest date for which information is available, was £53 million, an estimated weekly average cost of £1.90 per beneficiary.

  Note:

  Administration costs include an apportionment of DSS general and central administrative costs not related to specific benefits.

  Sources:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry April 1995. 1995 Social Security departmental report.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time it currently takes to process(a) a new claim for family credit and (b) a claim renewal. [13177]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 9 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the average time it currently takes to process (a) a new claim for Family Credit (FC) and (b) a claim renewal.
  Statistics are produced on a monthly basis and the latest details available are for December 1995. These show the average clearance times to be as follows:
  New Claims: 11.87 working days
  Renewal Claims: 10.90 working days
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has set a target for the clearance of claims to FC. This is that 60% of claims be processed within 13 working days and that 95% be processed within 42 working days. As at 31 December 1995, the FC unit had cleared 70.4% within 13 working days and 98.3% within 42 working days.
  The FC Unit also operates a Fast Track system for processing claims from the newly employed through the Employment Service. Information required for the assessment is provided by the customer's Client Adviser which enables the unit to assess the claim more quickly. Figures for the month ending 31 December 1995 show that 97.2% of customers using the Fast Track system had their claim decided in 5 working days.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants there are of invalidity
  469
  benefit; what is the annual cost; and what were the equivalent figures for (a) 1985 and (b) 1975. [14880]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  1975–76

  1985–86

  1995–96

  Number of claimants

  1450,000

  1849,000

  31,700,000

  Expenditure2 (£ million)

  1,925

  3,743

  47,713

  1 Figure for end November 1995, taken from a 5 per cent. sample of claims; excludes a small number of cases paid clerically.

  2 At 1995–96 prices.

  3 Taken from a 1 per cent. sample of claims. 1975–76 figures as at 31 May 1975.

  4 Latest estimate.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform child benefit. [14860]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Two reforms of child benefit are planned:

  (i) Draft regulations are currently the subject of statutory consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authorities. These restructure child and one-parent benefit to provide a more flexible mechanism for considering the relative level of support provided to lone parents as against that for two-parent families with children.

  (ii) Clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill provides that persons who require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom shall not be entitled to child benefit except under such conditions as may be prescribed in regulations. The intention is to bring child benefit into line with other social security benefits.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time for a claim renewal. [13174]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 9 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the average time for a claim renewal.
  The benefits that require renewal claims are Family Credit, Disability Living Allowance, Disability Working Allowance and Attendance Allowance.
  Statistics for the average clearance time of a renewal claim are produced on a monthly basis and the figures below show the year to date achievement between April 1995 and December 1995:-
  Family Credit: 11.7 days
  Disability Working Allowance: 18.5 days
  Disability Living Allowance: 23.0 days
  Information about Attendance Allowance could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Official Documents (Braille)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is available in braille. [13446]
  470
  Mr. Burt
  Yes. Braille copies of the Act can be obtained from the Department's information division. The Department has sent out a number of braille copies to individuals.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the types of disability for which information is available for the numbers of(a) applications for, and (b) awards of, disability living allowance. [13561]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information about a person's main disabling condition is recorded only where an award of disability living allowance is made. The table sets out the different types of disability and the numbers of first awards arising from initial, review or appeal decisions. Where there is more than one disabling condition, only the main condition is recorded.

  Awards of Disability Living Allowance between 1 March 1993 and November 1995123

  Main disabling condition

  Numbers (000s)

  Arthritis—including rheumatoid and osteoarthritis

  131

  Malignant disease—including cancer, carcinoma and leukaemia

  63

  Heart disease—including coronary, ischaemic, myocardial or heart attack

  52

  Disease of the muscles, bones or joints

  47

  Mental subnormality

  43

  Psychosis—including schizophrenia and manic depression

  42

  Spondylosis—including disc disease, cervical/lumbar etc

  38

  Chest disease—including bronchitis, emphysema, chronic obstructive airways disease and bronchiectasis

  31

  Cerebrovascular disease—including stroke, cerebral vascular accident and hemiplegia

  27

  Back pain—not specified

  26

  Asthma

  23

  Psychoneurosis—including anxiety, depression, phobia and hysteria

  21

  Epilepsy

  18

  Neurological diseases—not specified

  17

  Blindness

  17

  Trauma to limbs—loss of fingers/toes/amputation

  15

  Diabetes mellitus

  14

  Behavioral disorder—including enuresis and hyperactivity

  10

  Peripheral vascular disease including thrombosis and claudication

  10

  Multiple sclerosis

  9

  Major trauma other than traumatic paraplegia/tetraplegia

  6

  Renal disorders—including dialysis (not deemed)

  5

  Skin disease—including eczema and psoriasis

  5

  Deafness

  5

  Acquired immune deficiency syndrome—including human immune deficiency virus infection

  4

  Chronic fatigue syndromes—including myalgic encephalomyelitis post viral

  4

  Parkinson's disease

  4

  Dementia—including senile, pre-senile, Alzheimer's and traumatic

  4

  Bowel and stomach disease—including ulcer, constipation and not stated

  4

  Personality disorder

  2

  Blood disorders—including anaemia, clotting disorder and not specified

  2

  471

  Awards of Disability Living Allowance between 1 March 1993 and November 1995123

  Main disabling condition

  Numbers (000s)

  Multi system disorders, ie sarcoidosis, systemic and disseminated lupus erythematosus and scleroderma

  2

  Alcohol abuse

  2

  Metabolic disease—including phenylketonuria

  2

  Inflammatory bowel disease—including Crohn's ulcerative and colitis

  2

  Cystic fibrosis

  2

  Traumatic paraplegia/tetraplegia

  2

  Motor Neuron disease

  1

  Frailty—including senility/not specified

  1

  Severely mentally impaired

  1

  Haemophilia

  —

  Total parenteral nutrition—any cause

  —

  Haemodialysis

  —

  Multiple allergy syndrome

  —

  Double amputee

  —

  Hyperkinetic syndrome

  —

  Deaf/blind

  —

  Other unspecified conditions

  429

  All conditions

  742

  Notes:

  1 Include first awards made on initial claims, on review and on appeal.

  2 Numbers do not sum owing to rounding.

  3 '—' Means nil or negligible.

  4 This data is not capable of being further broken down.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division)—5 per cent. data.

  Fraud, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of social security fraud in(a) Blyth Valley and (b) south-east Northumberland. [13489]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics for individual fraud cases investigated by the Benefits Agency are collected for the Northumberland area, which covers Ashington, Berwick-on-Tweed, Blyth and Hexham, and are given in the table. Figures for organised fraud investigations are not available locally.

  Number of cases where fraud established

  Benefit savings £

  Prosecutions

  1994–95

  1,484

  3,046,542

  37

  1995 to 31 October

  1996

  1,397

  3,024,750

  29

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the SERPS pension that would be paid, on retirement, under current regulations to a person with an annual income of(a) £5,000, (b) £7,500 and (c) £10,000 and (i) 45 years contribution record and (ii) 30 years contribution record and no contributions in other years. [13767]
  472
  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Additional Pension £pw 1996–97 prices

  Annual gross income

  5,000

  7,500

  10,000

  45 years contributions

  28.50

  51.80

  71.50

  30 years contributions

  20.10

  35.80

  48.90

  1. It is assumed that the annual gross income was the same in all years at either £5,000, £7,500 or £10,000, i.e. that the gross income was at these levels in 1978 and was not increased in line with increases in prices or earnings.

  2. It is assumed the individual retires at SPA in 2023 after a working life of 45 years. Where the individual has made just 30 years of contributions it is assumed that their working life was also 45 years, but that they did not contribute in every third year.

  3. In the calculation of additional pension, earnings have been revalued on the basis of historical data from the Average Earnings Index: all employees and on the assumption of constant future real terms earnings growth of 2 per cent. per annum.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his yield from employers class 1A national insurance contributions on(a) company cars and (b) fuel for the year 1996–97. [13773]

  Mr. Heald
  The latest estimate for the total class 1A receipts to the national insurance fund in 1996–97 from both company cars and fuel is £439 million. Of that total £379 million is attributable to cars and £60 million to fuel.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees fell(a) below the lower earnings limit and (b) above the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions in each year since 1978. [14628]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is below.

  The estimated number of employees who fell below the lower earnings limit at April 1994 is 2.7 million1.

  Information regarding the number of employees earning at the upper earnings limit and above for every week in the tax years from 1986–87 to 1992–93 is in the table.

  Tax year

  Number of employees (millions)2

  1986–87

  1.09

  1987–88

  1.27

  1988–89

  1.59

  1989–90

  1.74

  1990–91

  1.82

  1991–92

  1.70

  1992–93

  1.84

  Source:

  1New Earnings Survey and Labour Force Survey.

  21 per cent. sample of national insurance records.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amounts paid out on benefit claims from political refugees and asylum seekers
  473
  in the United Kingdom over the last five years for which figures are available. [14010]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information about benefit expenditure in relation to political refugees is not available because they are not identified separately in departmental records. Information about asylum seekers has been recorded only for income support purposes from May 1993. Estimated annual expenditure is set out in the table.

  Asylum seekers claiming income support: estimated annual expenditure

  Enquiry data

  Estimated annual expenditure (£ millions)

  May 1993

  105

  May 1994

  124

  February 1995

  125

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure has been rounded to the nearest million.

  2. Estimated annual expenditure has been calculated by multiplying the number of cases by the average weekly income support paid, then by multiplying the resulting figure by 52.

  3. Figures given relate to Great Britain. No data are available in this format for Northern Ireland.

  4. Data was not collected prior to 1993.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Enquiries May 1994 and February 1995.

  Income Support Annual Enquiry 1993.

  One-parent Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those currently claiming one-parent benefit are(a) single, (b) divorced, (c) widowed, (d) legally separated and (e) living apart. [14011]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents under the age of 25 years are currently in receipt of one-parent benefit. [14012]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  It is estimated that there are 107,500 parents aged under 25 who are in receipt of one-parent benefit.

  Retirement Pensioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total sum of the social security budget for the financial year 1996–97 which will be devoted to benefits, pensions and other payments made to people over retirement age. [14013]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is set out in table 5 of the 1995 social security departmental report (Cm 2813), a copy of which is in the Library.

  The 1996 departmental report, to be published at the end of March, will include updated figures. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total cost of increasing the state retirement pension level by £1 for every entitled pensioner in the financial year 1996–97. [14014]
  474
  Mr. Heald
  The gross cost of giving all pensioner who receive some basic retirement pension a flat £1 per week increase in their pension is £540 million in the 1996–97 financial year. This cost includes giving £1 per week to the small number of pensioners receiving non-contribution retirement pensions.

  The total cost, net of income related benefits is estimated at £400 million.

  Note: All costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in income in real terms of the average pensioner since 1979; and how this is made up between(a) state retirement pension, (b) state earnings-related pension scheme and (c) personal or occupational pension. [14859]

  Mr. Heald
  Pensioners' average gross incomes increased by 50 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1993, the latest available information—a rise of £56.80 per week. It is not possible to provide separate figures for basic retirement pension and SERPS but taken together they account for approximately a quarter of the increase, while occupational pensions account for about two-fifths. No separate information on personal pensions is available.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Surveys 1979 and 1993.

  Note:

  The information contained in this reply is based upon pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the head of the household, or husband, is over state pension age.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons of pensionable age are in receipt of(a) occupational pension, (b) personal pension and (c) state earnings-related pension scheme. [14870]

  Mr. Heald
  The latest information available shows that 6.5 million people were in receipt of an occupational pension in 1991, and that an estimated 60 per cent. of occupational pensioners are over state pension age1. A total of 4.2 million people were in receipt of a SERPS pension in March 1995. It is estimated that in 1993–94, around 150,000 taxpayers over state pension age were in receipt of income from a personal pension2.

  Source:

  1. GAD Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes 1991 and DSS statistics.

  2. Inland Revenue. This figure relates to taxpayers only. There will also be non-taxpayers in receipt of a personal pension, but no data is available on this group.

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total sum invested in funded private pensions in the United Kingdom; and what are the equivalent figures for(a) each country in the European Union and (b) each country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [14861]
  475
  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  £ billion cash prices

  Estimated fund

  UK

  600

  Germany

  157

  Netherlands

  138

  Sweden

  53

  Denmark

  38

  France

  33

  Finland

  20

  Belgium

  12

  Spain

  11

  Ireland

  9

  Italy

  5

  Portugal.

  4

  Greece

  1

  Austria

  1

  Luxembourg

  Negligible

  sources:

  1. Finnish and Swedish data relate to 1993 and are from Finnish Central Pensions Institute.

  2. UK data from DSS estimate, and relates to 1993.

  3. Austrian data from Austrian Government, and relate to 1994.

  4. Other data from "Supplementary Pensions in the European Union"; 1994. Data for Greece relate to 1989; for Italy, Belgium and Denmark to 1991; for france to 1991/92; for Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Ireland to 1992; and for Portugal to 1992–93.

  Note:

  Information on the level of pension funds in OECD countries, other than for those countries which are members of the EU, is not available.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effects of reduced equity investment yields on the incomes to beneficiaries of occupational and personal pensions. [14873]

  Mr. Heald
  All things being equal, any reduction in yield would mean that members of occupational and personal pension schemes would retire with lower pensions or that they and their employers would have to contribute more.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of contributors to occupational pension schemes in(a) 1966, (b) 1975, (c) 1985 and (d) 1995. [14868]

  Mr. Heald
  Information on the number of active members of occupational pension schemes, some of whom will be in non-contributory schemes, is given by the "Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes" by the Government Actuary's Department. This is conducted every four years. The available information is in the table. Data for 1995 are not yet available.

  Year

  Active members of occupational pension schemes (millions)

  1967

  12.2

  1975

  11.4

  1983

  11.1

  1987

  10.6

  1991

  10.7

  476
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired persons were in receipt of occupational private pensions in(a) 1979 and (b) 1995. [14863]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated mat around 6.5 million people were in receipt of an occupational pension in 1991, the latest year for which information is available. Some of these people received more than one pension. The total number of occupational pensions in payment was 7 million. In 1979, there were 3.7 million occupational pensions in payment; information on the number of people receiving these pensions is not available.

  Source:

  GAD Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes 1991.

  Long-term Sick and Disabled People
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the current total spending on long-term sick and disabled people and their carers; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979, 1985 and 1990. [14869]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in me table.

  £ million

  Year

  Long-term sick and disabled

  1978–79

  1,770

  1985–86

  5,220

  1989–90

  8,420

  1994–95

  19,600

  Figures include payments to carers.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Land Sales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average price per acre of land sold for(a) industrial, (b) housing and (c) office development by the Cardiff Bay development corporation in each year since 1989. [14304]

  Mr. Hague
  I have asked the chief executive of the Cardiff Bay development corporation to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was for each county and for Wales in constant prices for each of the last four years for which figures are available(a) the total amount and (b) the amount per 100,000 population in pounds sterling of money received in grants from the European Union, indicating for each year the percentage change for each category. [13395]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The figures are not readily available by county. For Wales, the information is as follows for each structural fund.
  477

  European Regional Development Fund1

  £ million at 1995 prices

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total amount2

  73.664

  46.129

  51.141

  52.519

  Amount/100,000 population3

  2.548

  1.591

  1.760

  1.803

  Percentage change

  —

  4–38

  +11

  +2

  1Figures relate to payments made in the financial years specified.

  2Using GDP deflator at 1 December 1995.

  3Population figures based on the Registrar General's mid-year estimates office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  4The decrease in European regional development fund payments made during 1992–93 was a result of the delayed approval of the 1992–93 operational programmes.

  European Social Fund1

  £ million at 1995 prices

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total amounts2

  20.882

  19.809

  38.087

  37.481

  Amount/100,000 population3

  0.722

  0.683

  1.310

  1.287

  Percentage change

  —

  -5

  +92

  -2

  1 Figures relate to expenditure in a calendar year; the information is not available by financial year.

  2Using GDP deflator at 1 December 1995.

  3Population figures based on the Registrar General's mid-year estimates—office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund1

  £ million at 1995 prices

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total amount2

  108.639

  121.707

  171.339

  167.368

  Amount/100,000 population3

  3.757

  4.199

  5.895

  5.745

  Percentage change

  —

  +12

  +40

  –3

  1 Figures relate to receipts from the EC.

  2 Using GDP deflator at 1 December 1995.

  3 Population figures based on the Registrar General's mid-year estimates—office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 1996,Official Report, column 58, what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the increase in numbers in Wales classified as NVQ sub-level 1 and the decrease in the
  478
  numbers classified as NVQ level 2 between 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [14908]

  Mr. Hague
  NVQ sub-level 1 relates to basic skills training in literacy and numeracy. My Department has encouraged training and enterprise councils in Wales to do more to promote these qualifications as a means of helping unemployed people who need to improve their basic skills to find work. I am very encouraged by the improvement in the number of trainees achieving these qualifications.

  There is no obvious explanation for the decrease in the number of level 2 NVQs achieved, but is more than compensated for by the increase in the attainment of the other levels.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of his recent departmental letter of guidance to the South Glamorgan family health services authority encouraging the use of individual private consultants and the British United Provident Association by general practitioner fundholders to obtain out-patient and in-patient access to consultants for their long waiting list patients; [14882]

  (2) if the recent departmental letter of guidance to the South Glamorgan family health services authority on the placing of contracts by general practitioner fundholders for their long waiting list patients with individual private consultants and BUPA has been copied to the other family health service authorities; what representations he has received on its contents; and if he will make a statement. [14885]

  Mr. Hague
  I have arranged for a copy of the correspondence with South Glamorgan family health services authority to be placed in the Library of the House. It has not been copied to other health authorities.

  The letter neither encourages nor discourages the use of private consultants or hospitals. It is the duty of all commissioners, whether health authorities or fundholders, to provide the best possible care for the patient, having regard to value for money and the patient's best interests. If earlier treatment can be obtained in the private sector, I expect commissioners to consider this option rather than allow a patient to suffer unnecessarily.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester
Michael Charles, Lord Bishop of Winchester— Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Treaty of Rome: Status of Animals
2.42 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will press at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference for animals to be given a new status in the Treaty of Rome, as sentient beings, replacing their current status as goods or agricultural products.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as announced on 6th February, we will be asking our European partners to use the opportunity of the Inter-Governmental Conference to add a new protocol to the Treaty of Rome. That protocol would place a formal legal obligation on the Council of Ministers to give full regard to considerations of animal welfare in the exercise of its powers on agriculture, transport, research and the single market. Our proposals for the precise wording of the protocol are still under consideration.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging reply. Will he agree that to include in the protocol or, better still, in the treaty a new classification for animals, from being "agricultural goods" to being what they are— living creatures which know fear and pain— would greatly hasten the move towards the elimination in the Community of many inhumane methods of production? Could it also mean the end to journeys for livestock which are far too long?
Lord Lucas:My Lords, a new protocol along the lines which we suggest would help. In a way it would mark the general progress towards better animal welfare throughout the Community, through the efforts of voluntary bodies and others. It would provide a basis on which the Community could not so much push forward in the vanguard but ensure that its regulations accord with how people in general in the Community are now wishing their food animals to be treated.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister agree that animals should be treated as sentient beings? Alternatively, is he saying that the present classification can stand, that live animals are treated as being the same
388
as the insides of animals? I believe that that is spelt out as guts, bladders and other pieces of animals. Should not the Government take a firm stand on the classification, whatever means they choose to reach their objectives?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the question of the wording is difficult. In the dictionary definition, the word "sentient" means "possessed of senses". In other words, if something is capable of feeling touch, then it is sentient. However, the word has drifted a good deal to mean "possessed of emotions" and even "possessed of intelligence". It is a difficult word to define in English, let alone in the other Community languages.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Almighty created animals as well as human beings? Although animals have not eaten the fruits of the tree of good and evil, we who have should give due consideration to them.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is encouraging to hear the Government say that they are prepared to put forward a proposal amending the Treaty of Rome? Is he further aware that, notwithstanding anything that the Government ultimately succeed in incorporating in the treaty as a protocol, there will still have to be a proposal from the Commission in order for it to have any effect? What undertaking has the Minister received from the Commission that, if the protocol is inserted into the treaty, the Commission will bring forward a proposal? Otherwise, no action can be taken.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that we are talking about a proposal being imposed on the EU by Britain and then imposed on the EU by the Commission. It will happen because of the general will of the people of Europe and I am sure that the Commission will follow it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the Minister take particular care and obtain advice from biologists as to the wording of the proposal? It ought not to be the case that if you swat a fly you are in breach of an international treaty.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I absolutely agree. But not many of us think of flies as food animals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter:My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we eat oysters alive? Would the proposal interfere with that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in the old and proper sense of the word, oysters are certainly sentient beings in that they have senses. I can remember my father teaching me that, "Any kind of noise annoys an oyster, but a noisy noise annoys an oyster most".
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, on this side of the House we welcome the proposed protocol and recognise that both its enacting and its implementation will take some time. Meanwhile, can the Minister say whether United Kingdom meat exports on the hook are being vigorously

389
promoted and will continue to be vigorously promoted? Will he also say where responsibility now rests for such promotion? We believe that it would make a major contribution towards the growing concern about the way in which animals are treated, once they are exported from this country.
Lord Lucas:My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I find myself in complete agreement with the Benches opposite. This is a very important matter to promote and the Government and the Meat and Livestock Commission are doing their best to push it. I believe that we now export 80 per cent. of our meat on the hook. The more butchering we do here, the more value we add in this country and the more jobs we provide, let alone the implications for animal welfare. We shall push to promote this and will give help, encouragement and advice in order to achieve it. We hope that we will continue to do better, as we have done in the past.

European Central Bank
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, at the Inter-Governmental Conference to be held in 1996– 97, they intend to propose that the Treaty of Rome be amended to provide that the European Central Bank shall be accountable to the Council of Ministers.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish):The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, no.
Lord Bruce of Donington:My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am most disappointed by that reply, particularly in view of the flexibility of mind exhibited in answer to the previous Question? Is the noble Lord telling the House that Her Majesty's Government believe that the independence of a European Central Bank is equivalent to infallibility, or is the Minister telling the House that they do not trust the Council of Ministers to be able to exercise any effective political control— that degree of political control, incidentally, demanded by my own party?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's view is that many of these matters are still to be decided, hence the opt-out that we have. The position is that the European Central Bank, as currently proposed, would indeed be independent, and the governing council would be drawn from representatives of the central banks of all participating member states.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend share in the glow of satisfaction no doubt felt by his noble colleagues that the noble Lord opposite should prefer Ministers to bankers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am interested in that fact. I understand that it is not a view
390
shared by every member of the party opposite. As I understand it, some of them would like the Bank of England to be independent. I wonder what our interest rates might be like now were that the case.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, does the Minister accept that to have any serious prospect of influencing the constitution of the European Central Bank the Government must make our European allies feel that we have a fundamental, though not uncritical, commitment to the principle of a single European currency? Were that to be the case, would it not be so much easier to ensure the accountability my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington advocates and which we endorse? Can the Minister not get his colleagues to understand that, in the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, the best policy in Europe would be "to talk softly and carry a big stick" rather than vice versa?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:My Lords, I still do not understand what is the policy of the party opposite in regard to the opt-out. I do not know whether it would abandon the opt-out immediately just as it would hereditary Members of this House, or whether it approves of the opt-out. We are at this moment involved closely in the workings of the European Monetary Institute, the forerunner of the European Central Bank. It is our policy to be fully involved in all the work that goes on in order to protect the United Kingdom's interests whether we are in or out of the European Monetary Union.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the Government are in favour of the infallibility of Ministers— or at any rate, their wisdom— or whether they agree with the observation that fell from the lips of a senior French official yesterday that the council has ceased to be a place of negotiation and become a place where you drop in to sign a press release.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was not aware of that utterance by a French official. Those of my ministerial colleagues who attend the Council of Ministers certainly know that a great deal of hard work goes on there on the part of all the Ministers involved in order to try to advance the position of the European Union. Ministers from this Government who attend always ensure that they put British interests first.

European Commission: British Staff
2.54 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire Masked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the proportion of European Commission staff who are citizens of the United Kingdom, and what steps they are taking to ensure that sufficient qualified British candidates are recruited in future.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are not yet satisfied with the

391
proportion of Commission staff who are British. The Government are working both in the UK and in Brussels to rectify the shortfall. We are making good progress.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she recall that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who, when she was Prime Minister, took the most decisive action to improve the level of recruitment of British citizens to the Commission, through the setting up of the European "fast stream". I understand that, since then, recruitment has improved very considerably. Can she assure the House that in current reviews of Civil Service procedures the European fast stream will be maintained, as this is a very long-term investment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very pleased to say that it was my noble friend Lady Thatcher who initiated the European fast stream. In case noble Lords are not aware, this provides a programme of training and placements in UK departments for young, high-flying civil servants to assist their preparation for EU competitions. It has been running for just over five years, and has proved very successful. Thirty-five UK European fast-streamers were successful in four Commission competitions in the first three years. They represented 30 per cent. of the total UK successes. We intend to continue with the programme; it is a very good system.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I know that my noble friend the Minister is very committed to the European fast stream. Can she assure us that the obstacles that used to be placed in the way of re-entry into the Civil Service when people had been seconded have now been removed? Is it now possible for people not to lose promotion as they used to?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I wish I could agree with my noble friend that the obstacles had been removed. However, I do not yet feel that they have been sufficiently removed. We do our best by ensuring that wherever we spot under-representation we can put somebody into a place. We have also helped by making sure that a member of the Cabinet Office is seconded to work in the Commission on this very issue. However, we do not yet have UK government departments offering a hand to welcome people back. Until that happens, I regret to say that a lesser number will be prepared to go if they know that they cannot return to the British Civil Service after a spell in the European Commission.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is very satisfactory to note that efforts are being made to increase the number of British nationals serving in the Commission. However, will the Minister agree that it is surprising that over the years we have fallen behind such countries as Germany, France and Italy? At the present time each of those countries has 2,000 or more nationals serving in the Commission, whereas the number of United Kingdom nationals is less than 1,500— only slightly higher than
392
the number from Spain,which has a substantially smaller population than ours. What is the reason for our falling behind for so many years?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell the House the reason immediately. It is because we have not been so good at producing non-graduate linguists as have other countries. It is in the clerical, executive and secretarial grades that those other countries have a far higher proportion of good linguists. That is responsible for the high number from those countries which we cannot match. It is also the case that we now have a high proportion of secretaries who are bi-or tri-lingual. However, bi- and tri-lingual secretaries in this country normally have university degrees and are not then eligible for the secretarial grades within the European Commission. Therefore, we have to do something about non-graduate linguists, and a lot more, too.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree that when a well-qualified British member of the Commission staff is sacked for telling the truth about what goes on in the Commission, it is a disincentive to other British citizens to apply for positions in Brussels?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware of the case— I believe he joined in the discussion the last time that this particular question arose. When one works either in the British Civil Service or in the Commission, one has to abide by the rules. If one does not, then the disciplinary procedures will take place.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, given the Minister's earlier statement that the problem in this country is partly due to a lack of language ability post-school, what steps is she taking to persuade her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment that provision should be made for an increase in language teaching in our primary and secondary schools?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Education, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, who is trilingual, needs no encouragement from me to ensure that more language teaching takes place in schools. Indeed, she has been doing that ever since she went to that department. But the problem is not a recent one. It dates back to the 1960s, when, if I remember rightly, many people on the opposite side of this House did not believe in Europe at all and certainly did not encourage language teaching.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether or not this Government deliberately opted out of the Lingua programme for schools which applies in other member countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the questions asked of any programme provided by the European Commission must always be, "Is it good value for money?" or "Can we do it better at a national level?" That is subsidiarity. There are aspects of the Lingua programme which are good and other aspects which are not so good. I know that there has been a very special

393
effort made to get on with the Lingua programme. But that does not have a direct relationship to the matter that we are discussing.
Lord Annan: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that graduates were debarred from holding secretarial posts? Surely, that is a ludicrous situation. No wonder there is graduate unemployment when that is the case.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the problem is that, although we may have very good secretaries, they are often graduate secretaries. In that case, there has been a rule in the Commission— which we have already tried to have changed— that those with degrees in languages cannot apply for secretarial posts, if that is what they wish. This would be thought by some other countries to be unfair to their secretaries who do not have a language degree but who speak foreign languages. That is yet another matter that has to be put right in Brussels.
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, with regard to language education in schools, will the Minister speak to her noble friend Lord Henley about a scheme for teaching geography to GCSE level in the medium of Spanish— I wrote to him about the matter— where our own authorities are providing a block to that very worthwhile scheme in a boys' comprehensive school?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, obviously I do not know about the individual case mentioned by the noble Baroness. My noble friend Lord Henley reads Hansard avidly and I shall make sure that her remarks are noted by him.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that, as the promotion of British citizens in the Commission is important to the maintenance of their morale, the British Government will give careful thought to encouraging promotions within the Commission to senior Al to A3 positions rather than parachuting in people from the outside?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right but, as he well knows, achieving promotions within the Commission is not so straightforward a situation as we should wish. There is now a member of the British Cabinet Office in the Commission specifically directing attention to these matters, and this will help us. There is no doubt that we are under-represented in the Al to A3 grades, as we are in some of the non-senior grades.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people in this House may have been shocked at the reply given to the noble Lord, Lord Annan? Does that reply mean that in Europe and in the Commission there is discrimination against excellence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, it does not mean that they discriminate against excellence. What has happened is that there are many people who,
394
through their normal schooling in other countries of the European Union, grow up learning a number of languages and have perfectly good secretarial skills. It is obviously cheaper to employ somebody who has good secretarial skills and languages but who is not of graduate status, because that is the level at which they are paid. As I openly admitted to the noble Lord, there is a problem but we are trying to tackle it. It has been there for a very long time. Others have been unwilling to tackle it. We are willing to tackle it.

Group Personal Pension Schemes
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to promote the use of group personal pension plans in industry, and, if so, how.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are keen to promote all forms of private pension, both occupational and personal, including, where suitable, group schemes. We have produced a range of leaflets on private pension provision which includes information on group personal pensions. We are assisting the financial services regulators to develop suitable guidance on the sale of those products. We are also examining whether further steps are needed to promote the growth of group schemes among employers otherwise making no pension provision for employees.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. I congratulate him and his right honourable friend on the start that they have made with the group personal pensions. It is vitally important that employers should he encouraged to provide pensions for employees. In that respect, does he have any special plans, such as rebates on NICs, to encourage employers to start up such schemes? Secondly, in view of the fact that there is an upper limit to personal pension provision, does he agree that it might also be an advantage to indicate a basic minimum?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks about group personal pension schemes. Certainly they are very suitable for smaller and younger companies which do not have occupational pension schemes. They are a way of providing a scheme with reduced administrative costs and of facilitating an employer's contribution. If the scheme is approved, it will be eligible to receive the contracted-out rebate which is for both employers and employees. If I heard my noble friend aright, I must tell him that we have no plans to give employers a national insurance contributions rebate in order to encourage them.
On my noble friend's last point, it is an interesting idea that we should recommend a minimum payment. Of course there is a minimum payment which is compulsory and is, in fact, slightly under 5 per cent. It is the sum going to SERPS or to contracted-out

395
provision for an appropriate scheme. I am not convinced that it would be appropriate to raise that figure and go for some kind of compulsory saving via a pension scheme.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the last time that the Government became involved in promoting private pensions, it resulted in the misselling of pensions on a large scale'? Is he aware that the process of sorting out the problems associated with that have hardly made any progress at all? Does he agree that with such a record it is best for the Government to keep out of promoting anything to do with pension plans?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord's last point. It is vitally important that we give every person in this country the opportunity to belong to a second, preferably funded, pension scheme. That was one of the principles behind the Pensions Act which I took through your Lordships' House last year. I believe that the misselling of personal pensions is now a matter largely in the past. Investors are now better able to make informed choices. There are new and tougher rules on disclosure of charges, commission and policy surrender values. Higher standards of training and competence set by the financial regulators will underpin those changes. One aspect to which I referred in my original Answer is that we must, of course, ensure via the Securities and Investments Board that any selling of group personal pensions is conducted in a rigorous manner as well.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much has been put aside nationally to meet the future needs of pensions in this country? How does that record compare with the record of other countries?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have been extremely successful in this country in the build-up of funded pension schemes. In fact, on the last valuation, we had something like £600 billion of funded pension schemes set aside for retirement and future retirement. That is more funded pensions capital than the whole of the rest of the European Union put together. Indeed, a recent OECD report contrasted our position with that in many other developed countries. We were in an extremely favourable position. By the year 2030, our position would be hugely better than that of France, Germany and Japan, to name but three countries.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the Government's decision in the light of his reply? Does he agree that they have accepted the need to tighten up and ensure that people are sold schemes which are genuinely in their interest and that they have changed the way in which that is done? Do the Government accept any responsibility for those people who under the previous lack of regulation were sold schemes which are not in their interest?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks me about the present situation of
396
those people who were missold pension schemes. As she is aware, the Securities and Investments Board introduced a programme to secure redress for investors who opted out of or transferred funds from occupational pension schemes and suffered loss as a result of advice which fell short of the regulatory standards then in force. We believe that the people who gave that advice should pay to redeem the position for those to whom they gave it.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, if, as the figures the Minister produced indicate, we are doing so well with our pension schemes, is there any chance of our subsidising other EC countries at a later date?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I should jolly well hope not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister give an absolute assurance that, if we join a single European currency in the third stage of EMU, through taxation transfers we will not in fact be doing exactly what my noble friend suggested'?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, both noble Lords raise a serious point of which we arc well seized. We, as a government, will certainly guard against any proposition that would enable some of our European friends who have not the same sensible pension provision as ourselves to tap into our taxpayers to make up for their shortfalls.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in sorting out the problems referred to by my noble friend Lady Farrington, rather than simply telling us what are the Government's intentions?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, the Securities and Investments Board introduced a programme; that programme is making progress. Certain problems arose involving insurance, but I understand that some of those have been resolved. Letters are going out and progress has been made.
It is worth underlining that not every personal pension was missold. For many people, unlike what the party opposite think, a personal pension was the only way for them to obtain a second pension. Either they were not employees or they were employees of companies which did not provide a personal pension. One wonders whether the Opposition would like people to have remained pensionless in those circumstances.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Northern Ireland peace process.
Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Direct payments]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("services,") to the end of line 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for repeating the proposals for changes to this Bill by one deletion—Amendment No. 1—and one new clause—Amendment No. 12—in which I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and which I tabled also at Committee stage.
I thought the sweet reasonableness of what I proposed would win immediate acceptance, as indeed it did from almost everyone except the Minister. The passage of time has not persuaded me that the changes I propose are other than reasonable. I am happy to note that People First, in the briefing it supplied, support me in my attempt to deprive the Government of the opportunity to behave unreasonably and stress the need to allow people with learning disabilities to have as great a say as possible in their own lives with appropriate support when necessary.
I say "Amen" to that. But I harbour an unworthy suspicion that the Minster will be minded to respond by pleading the incomplete consultation exercise to which I referred at Committee stage. Your Lordships will be aware that those who manage those matters on our behalf have not been minded to let us have our debate after the consultation period which, ironically perhaps, has the advantage that we are again contributing to the consultation.
As I should not like to think that your Lordships are debating matters today to no purpose, I shall remain optimistic. After all, this is a House in which reason tinged by passion is thought by some to have the edge on politics tinged by passion. My aim is now, as it has been from the outset, to ensure that those people with learning disabilities for whom direct payments are an appropriate means of securing community care services should not be denied that opportunity because local or central government are prejudiced against them. Moreover, I want those who are to be covered to be
398
covered from the beginning and not to be considered some way down the line once others have had the new option for a year or two.
I note all that has been said about festina lente—testing the waters before plunging into them—but I am bound to say that, since local authorities will have complete discretion in regard to introducing schemes and discretion on an individual basis as to who is admitted to a scheme, a rush to destruction seems highly improbable. We are, I would guess, talking about a relatively small group and not, certainly in the shorter term, about a huge change in the services available.
We are all anxious to get this right. Given the experience already developed I suggest that the best way of getting it right is to allow the inclusion of modest numbers from a wide range of disabilities. I share the view of People First that there is a certain illogicality in testing a scheme on one group of people to see whether it works for other totally different groups of people. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, briefly, Amendment No. 1 touches on one important fact. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is talking about the rights of an individual, regardless of the label, to receive benefit and to direct that benefit to wherever he or she chooses to receive care and support.
It is true that the consultation period is not over; it is true also that we shall not be in a strong position at the end of that period to he able to make a realistic contribution to the Bill. Thus I recommend that the House listens to what is being said. All we are doing is trying to ensure that groups are not excluded. Surely that is something which is beneficial to all groups and will not be damaging to the general thrust of the Bill.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was brief in his proposal of this amendment, as he had already spoken at Committee stage in like vein. I too hope to follow his excellent example.
We are seeing one of the inexorable laws of politics; that is, if a sensible, widely agreed and desirable reform is introduced, the Opposition could not possibly oppose it and say that either it was too little or too late. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, used both arguments: "too little" because at the moment the scope of the Bill is limited, as we acknowledged when debating this matter at Committee stage; and, if the sort of group that he has particularly in mind comes in at a later stage as a result of consultation and fully in accordance with the provisions of the Bill which allow such extensions to take place, the "too late" argument is used.
I therefore reiterate that the Government have brought forward a useful and good piece of legislation. It would be right for us to give it a run as a new scheme, starting slowly in a modest and seemly fashion with proper monitoring. We should allow the monitoring to take place always with the possibility that, following on from the consultation and monitoring, the Government—without any primary legislation and within the provisions of the Bill—will be able to make provisions for the sort of extensions which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has in mind. In those circumstances, the arguments

399
are persuasive in supporting the Government, maintaining that flexibility and taking a sensible small step forward rather than perhaps trying to take too large a leap at this stage which could in the long run be against the interests of the Bill itself.
Baroness FaithfullMy Lords, I support the Government on the Bill, although in some ways I am sorry to oppose the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who does such splendid work for people with learning difficulties. With any new Bill, particularly a Bill like this which takes us into strange waters where we have not been before, there are bound to be difficulties. In fairness to those with learning difficulties, it is far better to know what those difficulties are so that people do not feel they have made a mistake in purchasing whatever it is they need and want. When working in a social services department I often found that someone with learning difficulties would come to me and say, "Why don't you help me?" One feels that one wants to help people with learning difficulties but one does not want them to make mistakes. There are bound to be mistakes at the beginning. It is far better for us to know what mistakes have occurred before giving them the opportunity to purchase these services.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, the amendment seeks to avoid restricting the payment of money for the provision of services in advance and confining it exclusively, as the Government intend, to physically disabled people under the age of 65. That would mean that by category those with learning difficulties or adults over 65 with physical handicaps would be excluded from receiving direct payments. Whether they wished to or not, they would instead receive only services.
What is the nature of the Government's objection to the amendment? Local authorities, voluntary organisations and disabled people wish to see the possibility of direct payments being made to all disabled people. What is the nature of the Government's argument? It cannot be that the Government oppose the proposal on financial grounds. It is clear from all the research that for local authorities direct payments are cheaper than services. The average cost of direct payments is around £5 an hour; the cost of services, with overheads, is around £8 an hour. Direct payments are cost neutral and certainly far cheaper for local authorities than the alternative of offering residential care. So the Government cannot resist the proposal on financial grounds. Direct payments are likely to be cost neutral and may very well save us all money. So the argument is not one of cost.
What is the next government argument? It appears to be the floodgates argument, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, touched. The argument is that local authorities would be overwhelmed and that therefore we should start slowly and gradually build up. That assumes that all local authorities are coming new to the issue of direct payments. They are not. Some schemes have been in operation for 14 years and already extend to far wider groups of disabled people than the Bill envisages. Without the amendment, in some local authorities fewer people will he eligible for direct payments as a result of the Bill than they are today. That is what it means. Some
400
people will lose direct payments which they are currently receiving through third-party agencies and may have to go back to residential care—certainly the evidence of Kingston suggests this—even though they arc currently enjoying and experiencing direct payments from a well-run and well-managed scheme funded by the local authority. Far from the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, being right, he is profoundly wrong. The Bill will narrow and take away opportunities which disabled people are currently enjoying.
Is it true, nonetheless, that if the amendment were passed the floodgates would open? All the research shows that only a small proportion of disabled people are likely to want and to take advantage of the scheme. The suggestion is that only around 100 of every thousand physically disabled people under 65 are likely to take up direct payments. The number could be more—I hope very much that it will be—but that is the evidence so far. Far from local authorities being overwhelmed, the problem is much more that unless we have adequate support and advice systems in place they will be underwhelmed and will need to build up the confidence of disabled people to take up these packages. The Government need not fear the floodgate factor any more than they need fear the cost factor.
The third argument the Government have adduced has been repeated by the Minister's supporters on the Back Benches. It is that local government must go slowly and build up confidence. Local authorities are already running such schemes. There are 60 in existence. Most have a remit to help far wider groups of people than the Bill envisages. I have every confidence that directors of social services who are starting direct payment schemes from scratch will not seek to extend them to people beyond the capacity of their authority to deliver them. The directors of social services are not stupid. They will not arouse expectations which they cannot deliver. They will not try to encourage demand which they cannot meet. Being professional, skilled and highly responsible people, they will want to ensure that people's needs and people's demands and authorities' ability to cope are aligned.
What does the Bill as it stands do? What it does is stereotype. The noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, are exactly right. The Bill says that irrespective of the needs, the abilities, the desires or competences of the individual person, the Secretary of State will say, "Certain categories of disabled people will be discriminated against. They will not be eligible to receive direct payments even though some of them are receiving them now." That is ruling out direct payments, not by assessment, not by judgment, not by demand, not by need, but by category and by discrimination. That is not proper. It is right that the local authority should exercise its professional judgment in conjunction with the needs and views of the disabled person. We do not need the Secretary of State double thinking the local authority. Trained professional social workers are always making fine and difficult judgments on issues like child abuse. We trust a social worker to make a judgment about child abuse but the Bill is saying that we do not trust a social worker to make a judgment about direct payments to disabled people who may

401
already be enjoying them. We do not need the Secretary of State to prejudge the situation in advance when local authorities wish to extend direct payments, when disabled people wish to receive them, and when it is at no additional cost and may very well save money for the taxpayer and council tax payer alike.
Let us not have discrimination by category. Let us recognise the human potential of every disabled person to be at the centre of the care system by organising services. Let us respect the local authority's professional judgment. Let us ensure that all disabled people who in the judgment of the local authority can benefit from direct payments and so take autonomy and control over their own lives are enabled to do so. Let us support the amendment today.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I and I believe others understand the principle that the Government follow in introducing a totally new system, except in Scotland, and taking certain categories to start with: that is to say, they do it gradually. No doubt that is what my noble friend will say in reply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has raised a point to which I hope my noble friend will reply. Unless I misunderstood her, she indicated that the present local authority schemes, which were carried out through third parties, would come to an end. My understanding is that during the introduction of the new system local authorities will not have to bring to an end schemes that they have operated up to now. I should be grateful if my noble friend could comment upon the point. Is the noble Baroness right to suggest that at a certain stage the existing schemes will have to come to an end or, as I had supposed, will they continue while the new direct payments schemes are brought into effect? If that is correct, there should not be a situation where there will be fewer disabled people who receive payments than there are now.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I did not understand one point in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She placed responsibility on directors of social services to decide whether or not somebody should have something because he fell into a certain category. Since this a new scheme, is it not rather unfair to place that responsibility on directors of social services?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Local authorities will be in very different situations under the terms of this Bill. Many local authorities have no experience of direct payments; others have run schemes for up to 14 years for categories of people which are wider than those currently envisaged by the Bill. When directors of social services come to construct schemes for direct payments within the framework of the Bill, they will extend it to such categories as they believe their local authorities are competent to handle. If there are currently third party schemes that give direct payments to people with learning difficulties, or people
402
over 65, there is absolutely no reason on this earth why they should not feel competent to continue to do so. But, if they are new to the area and this is the first time that they have put their feet into the water, they may well wish to start with a more narrowly focused scheme. That is a judgment that must be made locally in the light of local experience rather than predetermined at arm's length by the Secretary of State, who does not know what the local situation is.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has no wish to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I have no wish to disagree with her, but I think I do. Quite rightly, she refers to protecting people from making mistakes. I do not suggest that she says that in any paternalistic fashion. I know that she has the best of intentions to help those individuals to progress. However, at the last stage your Lordships considered whether the provision in Clause 1(1) for local authorities to make payments should be discretionary or mandatory. It is discretionary. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and later by my noble friend Lord Addington, will not affect the discretion of the local authority to judge the individual case. It deals with discrimination against groups of people, to which this amendment is addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, makes an interesting point. If local authorities are able to continue their current payments to individuals who may not fall within the categories that are to be approved, is it not ironic that others who are within those categories cannot be paid, if by their current actions those local authorities have shown that they are capable of dealing with categories of that type?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can we be assured that anyone who is currently in receipt of a direct payment can continue to receive it? Will that not cover the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis? I believe it has been said that these people receive the money from third parties rather than from local authorities. That tends to complicate the issue. I am not sure how that will affect the position. It seems to me that in many situations in life to put in a "no worsening" provision would cover it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when we discussed this clause at Committee stage I suggested that it might be incompatible with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am glad to say that my noble friend the Minister has written to say that expert opinion is that this Bill is compatible with that Act. Despite the legality of it, I have a feeling that the way in which this Bill is proposed to be put into effect is definitely against the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There will be discrimination if the payment of direct grant starts only for a certain category. What of the position of two cousins, one who receives a direct grant because he is just under the age of retirement and the other who will not receive it because he is just over the age of retirement, possibly by only a few days? I understand that once the grant has been agreed it will go on into the old age category.

403
The Independent Living Fund and the Independent Living (Extension) Fund have operated for a number of years, and have given direct grants. The lessons have been learned and can quite easily be disseminated to local authorities without direct experience. Local authorities talk to each other. Social security directors are in constant touch and talk of different problems and ways to overcome them. They learn lessons from each other and from their authorities. I believe that it would be for the benefit of disabled people and those in receipt of community care as a whole if everyone were to be included at this stage. The Bill is discretionary. It is up to local authorities to decide whether or not to make grants. It is also up to the individual whether or not he or she wishes to accept the grant. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this is an exciting new scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said, all of us are anxious to get it right. Many authorities have wide experience but others do not. There will be a need for monitoring, which can be very time consuming. Although my heart says that in due course I should go with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, my head tells me that I should support the Government now.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said. I hope that the Minister will answer her question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, at the risk of boring your Lordships, I reiterate the views expressed by my noble friends today that direct payments are a new and a largely untested development. The Government want to see them introduced on a limited scale so they can see how they work and so local authorities have the best chance to make them a success. We propose to limit the scale by restricting the size of the potential client group. Amendment No. I would remove the power to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that some local authorities had been operating schemes through which payments were made to individuals and that they would find that experience useful. But the noble Baroness has also said that not all local authorities have that experience. Even those that do may find that the making of direct payments as part of mainstream community care brings new challenges for which they are not prepared. We cannot assume that local authorities are ready to hit the ground running. If we remove the power to limit eligibility, that is what we are asking them to do. I am concerned that by removing the ability to limit the eligible client group we shall actually hinder the implementation of direct payments. Some authorities which would be happy to offer direct payments on a limited scale may not feel ready to offer them to all client groups. They may then decide that they would prefer not to offer direct payments at all in order not to appear discriminatory.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned the Independent Living Fund. That experience is useful hut it is not directly applicable. The role of local
404
authorities in relation to the Independent Living Fund is very different from the role they will be taking on in making direct payments. The Independent Living Fund fulfils a different role, with a different target population. By starting relatively small, we will enable local authorities to focus their attention on making direct payments work well. We are making no assumptions about whether people outside the initial eligible group would be able to manage direct payments, given the opportunity. That is why the client group we propose in the consultation paper does not exclude people with physical disabilities who also have learning disabilities. That is why if there is an age restriction we do not propose that people who have been receiving direct payments should cease to be eligible when they reach the age of 65. This is not about discrimination.
Our aim is to select a group of an appropriate size who are keen to take on this new freedom. Within the eligible group, the discretion over whether direct payments are appropriate for each individual remains with the local authority. Local authorities will be able to get used to direct payments with the limited group and the Government will be able to see clearly how they are working. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said in Committee, we are entering something of a minefield. We believe that by starting cautiously we shall build a firm foundation for the long-term future of this important new venture.
We are not suggesting, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rix, believes, that making direct payments to a limited client group will give local authorities experience of every type of challenge they would face if eligibility were drawn more widely. But there are many aspects of managing direct payments which are the same whatever the particular needs or characteristics of the recipients. For example, local authorities will need to set up monitoring and accounting systems to keep track of the money. Limiting the client group will keep it on a manageable scale while people are getting used to the concept of direct payments.
We do not propose to reach a final decision on the client group before we have considered the responses we receive to the consultation paper. We have already said that we will consider carefully whether all people with learning disabilities should be eligible. Specifying the client group in regulations means that it can be adjusted without the need to amend primary legislation. I have given your Lordships an undertaking that we will keep the position under review once direct payments are available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that people on current schemes may lose the direct payments that they receive now. That point was also raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The Bill will not make existing schemes illegal. Those that are

405
there now can continue. Therefore, there is no need to follow the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Gardner of including a "no-worsening" clause.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does that mean that the Minister accepts in principle the argument that it is right for many disabled people (who are excluded on the face of the Bill) to receive direct payments but that she is asking local authorities, which she is trying to protect from bureaucracy, to have the additional bureaucracy of not only running their own schemes but funding extra clients through third-party schemes because they cannot include them in their own scheme? Is that a wise way of helping local authorities by making them fund direct payments through two systems simultaneously?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is not necessarily to legalise existing ultra vires arrangements. That is not right. The purpose of the Bill is to lay down a practical framework for the future. It is for local authorities to ensure that their schemes operate within the law, but the Bill will not make existing schemes illegal. Those authorities which already operate such schemes can continue to do so.
I understand the desire of the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, to see direct payments being made available to everyone who wants to receive them and is able to manage them. Amendment No. 12 shows that those noble Lords do not want to see local authorities deciding not to offer someone direct payments on the basis of the nature or extent of their disability. In determining whether to offer someone direct payments, local authorities must take account of all relevant considerations. That would automatically include a person's wishes and ability to benefit from a direct payment. In addition, the Bill already explicitly requires that a direct payment can only be made with a person's consent. We must take great care when imposing restrictions of the kind set out in Amendment No. 12 on the way in which local authorities make those determinations. If the nature or extent of someone's disability is not relevant—
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am sorry to have to interrupt the noble Baroness and I thank her for allowing me to do so. But does that mean that local authorities can make such payments to people with learning disabilities under the Bill when it becomes an Act?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that depends on the responses that we receive to the consultation document. It would be very wrong of the Government to put out a document for consultation and to decide, prior to receiving responses, on the action that they wish to take. Sadly, the noble Lord will have to be patient a little longer.
If the nature or extent of someone's disability is not relevant to the authority's judgment of whether direct payments are appropriate for them, the authority could not take that into account in any case. But if those matters are relevant at all, authorities should be able to take them into account and it would be wrong to prevent them from doing so by this legislation. It is not a matter of
406
discrimination but of common sense. Along with my noble friends Lord Hayhoe, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lady Faithfull and Lady Seccombe, I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have supported the amendments and perhaps not quite so grateful to those who have not. Perhaps I may respond first to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. As I said in my introductory speech, nobody is suggesting that people with learning disabilities do not receive support and advice, where appropriate, in pursuing the question of direct payments. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that he had wondered whether the provisions breach the Disability Discrimination Act which we passed only last November. He has been assured that that is not so, yet the Minister said that the Government will be limiting eligibility—I should have thought that that was discrimination; that people could be included who had physical as well as learning disabilities—I should have thought that that too was excluding people with learning disabilities alone; and that local authorities might well be able to make such payments in spite of the Bill going through in its current form—that seems slightly inexplicable.
In Committee I complained that the consultation period could extend beyond this Report stage and I asked whether the business managers could arrange for Report stage to take place after the consultation period; otherwise all of us are speaking in a vacuum. However, I received a very gentle rebuke from the Minister who said:
"That is a question for the business managers. I certainly would not dream of giving such an undertaking".—[Official Report, 15/1/96; col. 380.]
I am afraid that we have seen the result today. There is a fairly even split on both sides of the House as to whether people with learning disabilities should be included in the provisions right at the beginning. There is no compulsion on local authorities to make direct payments, but that group of people must be included. I am speaking on behalf of a constituency of 1.2 million people with learning disabilities. That is a lot of people. I am not suggesting for one moment that they would all be in receipt of direct payments, but it is a very large constituency. Therefore, in view of my constituency and of those who have supported me, I have no option but to seek the opinion of the House.
3.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton,L

Barnett,L

Addington,L.[Teller.]

BirK,B

Allen of Abbeydale,L

Blackstone,B.

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Borrie,L.

Annan,L.

Bristol,Bp.

Archer of Sandwell,L.

Broadbridge,L.

Avebury,L.

Bruce of Donington,L.

Bancroft,L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

407

Chapple, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar, C.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Drogheda, E.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eames, L.

Nelson, E.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Fitt, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rix, L. [Teller..]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich,

Halsbury, E.

Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shannon, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Healey, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stedman, B

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham,L.

Strabolgi,L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Hillliead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Judd, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kintore, E.

Wharton, B.

Lawrence, L.

White,B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey,L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winchester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ailsa, M.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Courtown, E.

Astor, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cranborne, V.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Crathorne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blaker, L.

De Freyne, L.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boardman, L.

Denham, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brigstocke, B

Downshire, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elton, L.

Carnegy of Lour.B.

Faithfull, B.

Carnock, L

Ferrers, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Father, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

Chelmsford, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

408

Gage, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Munster, E.

Geddes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Goschen, V.

Newall, L

Gray of Contin, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Norrie, L.

Harlech, L.

Northesk, E.

Hayhoe, L.

O'Cathain, B

Hemphill, L.

Orkney, E.

Hooper, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Howe, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Huntly, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlings, B.

Knollys, V.

Romney, E.

Lindsay, E.

St. Davids, V.

Liverpool, E.

Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lucas, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McConnell, L.

Strange, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mackay of Clashfern,L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Strathclyde.l.[Teller.]

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Teynham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thatcher, B.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mersey,V.

Trefgarne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Northern Ireland
4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Northern Ireland peace process made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I will make a Statement on the bomb explosion in the South Quay area of London last Friday, the declared end to the IRA ceasefire and the implications for security and the peace process in Northern Ireland.
"There is no doubt the evil act in London was the work of the IRA. It has all the hallmarks of their operations with the callous sacrifice of innocent lives. The bomb followed shortly after an IRA statement, given to the Irish broadcasting organisation on the evening of 9th February, that the complete cessation of hostilities ordered in August 1994 was now at an end. The IRA admitted its responsibility on 10th February.
"The facts of the incident are briefly these. Around 17.45 last Friday warning calls were made that a large bomb had been placed at South Quay Station, Marsh Wall in London. Local police arrived at the scene shortly after six o'clock, and anti-terrorist branch officers shortly after that. At around 18.30 a suspect vehicle, a Ford flat-backed lorry, was identified, and the immediate area cleared. While the area was being evacuated, the vehicle exploded, causing extensive . damage to buildings in the area, and a large number
of casualties.

409
"Two people were killed, and 43 injured, two critically. Three police officers were among the casualties. The House will join me in extending our deepest sympathy to all the innocent victims and their families. It is little short of a miracle that the casualty list was not much longer. I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of the emergency services. Despite being hampered by a fractured gas main at the scene, they responded magnificently and they richly deserve all our thanks.
"This may not be the last such atrocity. More may follow, both here in the mainland and in Northern Ireland, if the IRA ceasefire is not renewed. We will do all we can to prevent them and to catch all those responsible. The protection of the public will be our first priority.
"In Great Britain, security has immediately returned to pre-ceasefire levels. In Northern Ireland itself, we had been careful from the very first moment of the ceasefire to take no irreversible steps to downgrade our security capability. All necessary measures to cope with the present situation are now in place. The RUC is on full alert. We have sought to make an appropriate and proportionate response to the increased threat without disrupting daily life more than necessary.
"The IRA has brought the 17 month-old ceasefire to an end. There is no shred of an excuse for this return to violence, least of all now, when all-party negotiations were clearly in sight.
"After the August 1994 ceasefire declaration, we called repeatedly on the IRA to make clear that it was permanent, despite criticism by some for doubting IRA good faith. We did doubt its good faith, and the IRA did not say it was permanent. Nonetheless, after a prudent period of time, in order to move the process forward, we were prepared to act on the working assumption that the ceasefire would last.
"In the months that followed we reduced the more visible and inconvenient aspects of security. We took soldiers off the streets and opened all the border crossing points. We did everything possible to create new jobs in Northern Ireland through renewed inward investment and helped to produce a remarkable economic upsurge. We talked to Sinn Fein leaders at official and ministerial level. We constantly sought to move the peace process on to the all-party negotiations that everyone agrees are necessary.
"No one—no one—took more risks for peace than this Government. But we never lost sight of the fact that the IRA commitment had not been made for good. No responsible government could have done otherwise. That was why we and others saw a start to the decommissioning of illegal arms as a way of creating confidence in Sinn Fein's acceptance of democratic peaceful methods, and showing that the violence really had ended.
"But all the time that Sinn Fein were calling for all-party talks, we knew that the IRA continued to train and plan for terrorist attacks. Punishment beatings and killings continued. It remained ready to
410
resume full-scale terrorism at any time. We could never be confident that its behaviour was that of an organisation which had decided to renounce violence for ever. This was not a true peace.
"I regret to say that the events of last Friday showed that our caution about the IRA was only too justified. The timing of the return to violence may have been surprising. The fact that violence could resume was not.
"We must now continue the search for permanent peace and a comprehensive political settlement in Northern Ireland. Let there he no doubt that the Government's commitment to this is as strong as ever.
"We will work for peace with all the democratic political parties and with the Irish Government. But a huge question mark now hangs over the position of one of the parties: Sinn Fein. Its leaders have spoken often of their commitment to peace and peaceful methods. But they have always ducked and weaved when they have been questioned about the IRA and their methods. After the events of last Friday, their ambiguity stands out starkly.
"The test for eligibility to take part in all party negotiations was set by the British and Irish Governments in paragraph 10 of the Downing Street Declaration: they should be democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process.
"Sinn Fein's leaders claim that they did not know about the bomb at South Quay and the IRA's ceasefire statement. But they have refused either to condemn or to dissociate themselves from either. Sinn Fein must decide whether it is a front for the IRA or a democratic political party committed to the ballot not the bullet. Meanwhile, one thing is clear: in the absence of a genuine end to this renewed violence, meetings between British Ministers and Sinn Fein are not acceptable and cannot take place.
"That is also the position of the Irish Government. They have made it clear to Sinn Fein that their attitude and willingness to meet at political level will be determined by whether the IRA ceasefire is restored. We and the Irish Government are at one on this: the ball is in the court of Sinn Fein and the IRA, if indeed that distinction means anything. It is for them to show, through their words and actions, whether they have a part to play in the peace process or not. I am not in the business of slamming doors; but the British and Irish peoples need to know where Sinn Fein now stands.
"The people of a democracy are not passive spectators to events. They have the right to make their views clear on issues like this. The people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, have consistently done so. The popular will for peace has never been clearer. The peace process will go on. I commend all those who have had the courage and sense, in the face of this latest atrocity, to work to prevent a wider return to violence.

411
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have met all the parties in the last two weeks. This process will he intensified with those parties which have not, for the present, disqualified themselves. The aim is, as it has always been, to establish the necessary confidence to enable negotiations between all the parties to start.
"I want everyone to be absolutely clear on this point. The objective of all our actions and policies before and since the ceasefire has been to get to a position where all constitutional democratic parties can get round a table together. Everything else is a means to that essential end.
"I told the House on 24th January that, if the paramilitaries would not start decommissioning their illegal arms, one alternative way forward was through elections to give the electoral mandates and confidence which could lead straight, and straightaway, to negotiations. As proposed by the Mitchell Report, decommissioning could go ahead in parallel with those negotiations.
"The proposal has been consistently misrepresented by Sinn Fein and misunderstood more widely. I repeat now that its purpose is to lead directly and speedily to negotiations between all parties committed to peaceful and democratic methods, aimed at reaching a comprehensive political settlement. An elected body would have to be broadly acceptable and would be strictly time limited. I am not proposing an assembly with legislative and administrative powers. Any suggestion of a return to old-style Stormont rule is manifest nonsense.
"The proposed elections are a door to full negotiations. I continue to believe that they provide the most promising opening available. We will pursue the proposal and seek to persuade all concerned that it is indeed a way forward, not a means of delaying progress.
"Our ideas are still in discussion with the parties; but I do want to assure the House that there are ways forward to negotiations with all the parties, and that these could include Sinn Fein but only, of course, if there is an unequivocal return to the ceasefire.
"Others have ideas too, including the Irish Government. Our minds are not closed. Nor, I know, are theirs. I have talked to the Taoiseach twice since the bombing. We plan to meet in London soon to discuss all the possibilities. I intend to find a way through to the negotiations with all those committed to democracy.
"The peace process in Northern Ireland has received a serious setback from the men of violence. But it is not over, not by any means. We have seen the benefits of what has been achieved since the ceasefire: the freedom to live and work normally, and to enjoy life; increased prosperity and new jobs; and new hope for the future. These must not be thrown away.
"This Government will not be deterred by terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland have tasted peace, a peace that changed their lives. I have told the House before that I will leave no stone unturned in
412
the search for peace. That is true today and will remain true in the future. The people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve no less".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. As the noble Viscount underlined, this is a sad day and a grave occasion. When we adjourned last Thursday, I do not believe that any of us could conceivably have expected that today we would have to listen to a Statement of this nature. Perhaps I may express once again—that is, if it needs repeating—our total condemnation of this unjustified and unjustifiable action by the IRA. I join the noble Viscount in expressing our deep sympathy and condolences to the families of those who were so tragically killed, and also to all those who were injured in the attack.
Listening to the Statement, I cannot help reflecting that it is fortuitous that the death toll was not a great deal higher. The fact that it was not was hardly due to any deliberate moderation on the part of the IRA. To explode a bomb of that size in such an area at 7 o'clock on a Friday evening, the intention must have been to cause casualties.
If we are all saddened by the ending of the ceasefire, we must now ask ourselves: where do we go to from here? The peace process has been gradual. Given the historical background, it could not have been otherwise. Indeed, getting the peace process off the ground in the first place was an historic achievement for all concerned. It is possible that progress has not been fast enough for some; perhaps a little too fast for others. However, there is no excuse for renewed violence by the IRA. As a matter of priority, Sinn Fein must give an unambiguous guarantee that it is committed to the peace process.
We on this side of the House have always supported the Government in their policies towards the peace process. That support is again forthcoming today. This is not the time to apportion political responsibility for the breakdown, and I do not intend to go down that particular road today. There will be plenty of time for analysis and consideration in the future. I merely express the hope that the Government will succeed in relaunching the peace process and that this severe setback will not prove fatal. It may require new thinking and a change of attitude by some of those most closely involved. If that is what is necessary, I hope it will be forthcoming.
The Government are consulting closely with the other parties involved. I reiterate our view that it is vital that the two governments proceed together. The co-operation and the co-ordination so far have on the whole been impressive. It is crucial that that should continue. Secondly, I re-emphasise—if it needs re-emphasising—that it is now for Sinn Fein to establish its commitment to a peaceful process for change. Thirdly, we should not forget the people of Northern Ireland. It is they who

413
have suffered much in the past; it is they who are watching apprehensively the events taking place today with mounting concern as to what the future might bring. I believe that we owe it to them to use every endeavour to resume the search for peace.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, my experience in making statements after terrorist outrages—which, 20 years ago, I did with depressing frequency when dreadful incidents in Birmingham, Guildford and the Tower of London followed fast on each other's heels—has led me to the view that little constructive is likely to emerge from such aftermath exchanges. Indeed, they are liable to become almost a competitive exercise in expressions of the horror that we all feel. Therefore, I propose to be brief.
Friday night's bomb was a bitter disappointment, although not, perhaps, an entirely unexpected one. Even if it marks—which I hope it does not—the end of the phase of hope, 17 months without violence has been gained. That in itself fully justifies the effort. But those 17 months have also underlined just how heavy would be the price of returning to the old pattern of intermittent horror. The price for Belfast above all but also for London and other major English cities, and perhaps even for Dublin, would be very heavy. It is not just the threat of death and mutilation, but the return to a whole dreary regime of life under semi-siege, symbolised by the reappearance of armed check-points in the City of London.
I hope and believe that the Prime Minister will make every effort to put the peace process back on the rails. I welcome the assurances to that end in the Statement. However, I am disturbed by the gap which has opened between the British and the Irish governments. The Irish Government are clearly deeply affronted by what Sinn Fein/IRA have done. But that has not brought them closer to London.
When Mr. Major announced his attitude on the Mitchell Report on 24th January, I, together with nearly everyone else, endorsed his proposal for Northern Ireland elections. I believe that I was wrong to do so. At any rate I was wrong to endorse such an exclusive concentration on the electoral route. It was a mistake to single out that one aspect of the Mitchell package, particularly as the problem of Northern Ireland is not that of identifying the majority—everyone knows what the majority is—but the infinitely more subtle and historic problem of getting that majority to live in peace and mutual tolerance with the large minority, and indeed vice versa. In the peculiar circumstances of Ulster, just counting votes will not do that.
Finally, disunity between the Irish and the British governments could be just as damaging to the peace process as bombs and bullets, deplorable though they are and devoutly though I hope that the ceasefire will be renewed.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for the spirit in which they have approached the tragic events of last Friday. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, doubted
414
the value of what he called these aftermath exchanges. I have to admit to a degree of sympathy with what he said. Nevertheless, the fullhearted support which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and, with one exception—to which I shall return in a minute—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, have given this afternoon is enormously helpful to Her Majesty's Government in expressing the united horror of the British people to terrorist methods which are wholly alien to the traditions of parliamentary government in this country.
I, of course, wholly endorse the condemnation that both noble Lords gave, and I need not report that. However, I wish to underline something which my right honourable friend said in his Statement and to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, drew attention a moment ago. Someone up there was watching over the East End of London. It does not make it any better for the dead and the injured but we were extraordinarily lucky not to have suffered more severely than we did. I wish to emphasise how much we owe to the courage of the police and of the rescue services, particularly of the police who with reckless disregard for their own safety cleared the area and investigated it to discover where the bomb was.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the House wishes to be associated with those remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made an important point when he emphasised that it is for Sinn Fein to establish once again its commitment to peaceful methods. Bombs create a reaction. The danger always has to be that if one explodes a bomb one will ultimately encourage other people to start doing so in return. It is not only viciously dangerous for the victims but it is also viciously dangerous for the future of parliamentary government in our country. I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Richard, associate himself so eloquently with that principle this afternoon.
The other point the noble Lord made is one that I also wish to associate myself with. Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland since the declaration of the ceasefire will, I suspect, be more struck by one phenomenon than any other; and that is the extraordinary change of atmosphere that has taken place over the past 17 months. It is not only the remarkable economic changes that have begun to occur, many of which have been directly encouraged by my noble friend Lady Denton who is responsible for these matters in the Northern Ireland Office, but also the almost spontaneous way in which those who are responsible for domestic industry, commerce and inward investment have realised what an admirable place Northern Ireland is, without the bombs, for industry and commerce to flourish. It has taken little time for peace to enable that to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, emphasised that the two governments in Dublin and London should proceed together. It is clearly important that that should happen and I wholly endorse that wish. My right honourable friend in his Statement made it perfectly clear that he has been in contact with the Taoiseach since the explosion of the bomb. I can certainly undertake on

415
behalf of my right honourable friend and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we shall endeavour, as best we can, to ensure that Dublin and London can proceed together and can promote the democratic principles which we both hold dear.
I return to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with regard to whether we were right to place so much emphasis on the electoral route. It might just be worth asking your Lordships what the practical consequences are of no talks happening at all. The practical consequences of no talks are a continuation of the horrors that the Province has endured since 1969. If talks are to happen, they have to include all parties who are committed to parliamentary government and democratic principles. It is no good for—to name names—the SDLP to be prepared to turn up under certain circumstances if the Unionist parties are not prepared to turn up. The same is true—if I may say so—vice versa.
How are we in practical terms to find a way for all-party talks to occur? There may be other ways than the electoral process. If there are other ways which can produce that result, we as the Government are entirely prepared to look at them in the most constructive way possible. As my right honourable friend constantly says, there is no question but that we are open to all suggestions. However, one thing is perfectly clear. If we are to produce a settlement, it must be a settlement which enjoys the consent of the people of Northern Ireland—the people of both main traditions. We have a way in this country by which we have managed in the past—not always perhaps elegantly, but on the whole successfully—to secure that consent by which governments have acquired the authority to govern, and that is through the ballot box.
If an elected body, which is elected through the ballot box, were to come into existence—as I made clear on the previous occasion that I stood at this Dispatch Box talking about Northern Ireland matters—and if options are open to negotiation about how we should proceed to negotiate from the existence of that body, and just supposing that the body itself agreed to mandate certain delegations from among its membership to take part in all-party talks, then at least those who negotiated would clearly have the consent of those who had elected them. I would merely say to your Lordships that that consent is one which I, for one, would be much happier to stay with than the consent which had been bludgeoned out of people by the explosion of bombs made of semtex.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Eames: My Lords, I assure the House, in line with the Statement we have just heard and the comments from the noble Lords, that nowhere in the United Kingdom has the disgust, the anger and the frustration at the events of Friday been more obvious than in Northern Ireland. I wish to assure this House that from a Province which for 25 years has suffered the hardship, the cruelty and the unending hurt of terrorist attack, that is a sentiment which was spontaneous. It came from Roman Catholics, Protestants, nationalists and unionists, and it came from north and south of the border. I wish to
416
assure the House that those who carried out the atrocity on Friday did not have the mandate of the vast majority of the people of Ireland.
Secondly, on behalf of so many to whom reference has been made perhaps I may use this opportunity to express feelings of sympathy and sorrow to the relatives of those who lost their lives and to those who were so horribly injured. However, as we were so rightly reminded a few minutes ago, we must look ahead. I do not believe that the peace process is dead. I base that remark not just on political niceties but on what I know from my day and night ministry in the Province to be the yearning and feeling of ordinary people who, for a considerable number of months, have enjoyed a sense of freedom that some of them had never known.
Behind the headlines so much that is good and worthwhile has been achieved across the traditional gaps in society. Many noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland or who have had contact with it will know that incredible cross-community contacts have been made possible during the period of peace. Because of that and because of the overwhelming feeling of disgust and disappointment at this moment, I am absolutely convinced that the House must be reminded that there are two sides to the peace process. First, there is that referred to by the Prime Minister in terms of contacts between governments and political parties. Secondly, there is the ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of the people. To a large extent, that battle has been won. I plead with the House to give every encouragement to the peacemakers who, with great personal courage, have achieved so much.
I echo the plea that the British and Irish Governments do everything possible to ensure that they are perceived to be acting in concert. Nothing plays into the hands of those who wish to dissuade the process of peace so much as the perception of division. There will he differences of approach; I beg and pray that they are minimised.
As expressed so frequently in this House with compassion, knowledge and understanding, trust has been the real casualty of the past 25 years. I appeal to paramilitary organisations which have made certain statements, particularly over the weekend, not to be drawn into the trap that is being set for them of retaliation or of becoming involved in attacks elsewhere. Through their political representatives they have shown surprising political knowledge and foresight. I beg, on behalf of so many people in Northern Ireland, that they do not fall into that trap.
In thanking the Prime Minister for his Statement, perhaps I may ask that, if it turns out that an elected assembly or forum is the right process to adopt, the formula for it will be definite, clearly stated and full of reassurance to the nationalist community, and that it will be elected for a limited, set period to do its task.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not believe that the House could have been treated to a more authoritative or respected voice on this occasion and we are indeed fortunate to have the noble Lord adding to our deliberations today. I must be brief because many noble Lords wish to speak. I wholly take on hoard what

417
the noble Lord said about the entire population of the island of Ireland being disgusted. I wholly agree that we must look ahead. As my right honourable friend said, we do not believe that the peace process is dead. Indeed, it is important that we ensure that the terrorists should not be able to demonstrate that they have a veto on the peace process. A minority of the population of Northern Ireland should not be allowed to dictate to the majority by these unacceptable methods.
I too pay tribute to the cross-sectarian achievements which the noble Lord mentioned. That has been one of the most dramatic developments not only during the past 17 months but, in certain areas of the Province, well before the peace arrived. As we are all well aware the noble Lord, Lord Eames, has made his own contribution to that.
I accept, as did my right honourable friend, that it is absolutely essential that the two Governments should proceed in tandem. As I have made clear in previous Answers, we will do our utmost to make sure that we keep the Dublin Government as fully informed as we are able about what we intend to do and that there should be no surprises as far as they are concerned. I also associate myself with the noble Lord's comments about paramilitaries from the other side of the divide. I hope only that the restraint and wisdom that they have shown so far will continue.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement and join in the condemnation of this most callous and brutal bombing which has taken place in the City of London. I join in paying tribute to the emergency services and extend condolences to the relatives of those who were killed and to those who were injured.
The one thing that we must be quite determined about is that the Government do not give way to violence. The proposal that there should be elections may be right or it may be wrong. Personally, I am convinced that they are right. However, no matter which, it would be a great weakness on the part of the Government to give way and to say, "We are not going to have elections as a result of this bomb". That would point out a way for the future; that if you really want something you plant a bomb or indeed several.
I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic say that to proceed along the course of elections would be adding petrol to the flames. I hope that he will reconsider that comment because it means that one should give way to terrorism. One can give way to argument and to democratic voting but I hope that we shall never give way to terrorism. Therefore, I hope and trust that the Government will stand firm against any menaces of this kind which are meant to produce political ends. I was glad to hear the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal say that the Government would not negotiate with Sinn Fein until it is clear that it has given up violence for good.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that perhaps the Provisional IRA is under the strong misapprehension that exploding
418
bombs in London or in the Province of Northern Ireland will induce Her Majesty's Government to change their stance. I hope that the events of the coming days and weeks will disabuse it of that; and that it will realise that the only way in which it can participate in the government of the Province and of the political processes of the United Kingdom is through the use of the methods which we ourselves employ through the constitution of this country.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, while the Prime Minister's personal and passionate commitment to peace has been further underlined in the Statement read to this House, will my noble friend take this opportunity roundly to condemn the calumny which was given widespread currency over the weekend: that the Prime Minister had somehow devised a series of obstacles designed to hinder progress towards peace which in its turn justified the fiendish and cowardly action by the IRA?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, of course. We must be well aware in this House that there is only one organisation responsible for last Friday's outrage, and that is the IRA itself. No matter how many arguments others may have against the approach of this Government to the peace process, such arguments could never justify the use of bombs and bullets.
I must emphasise that if Sinn Fein were as truly committed as it claims to be to exclusively peaceful methods it would, after all, accept that and condemn the IRA for its actions on Friday and for calling an end to its ceasefire. I have yet to hear such a condemnation.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the massive wave of revulsion which has swept these islands since last Friday must surely indicate to the IRA that however many bombs it lets off here or in Ireland, or however many people it kills, at the end of the day it cannot succeed in bludgeoning a democratic people to accept its demands.
However, I believe that that should be made clear, and as yet it has not been made clear. In his original comments on the Mitchell Report, the Prime Minister laid stress on the elective process. He should have laid even greater stress on the six principles enunciated by Senator Mitchell. Those principles make it very clear that anyone who does not accept a rejection of violence has no part in the democratic process.
I have fought many elections in Northern Ireland. While in this present atmosphere I have slight reservations, I am of the opinion that if an election were held, and every candidate had either to reject or accept those six democratic principles enunciated by Senator Mitchell, it would give a clear indication that the people of Northern Ireland either accepted or rejected violence. That is what the six principles are about.
It has been most importantly stated this afternoon that day in and day out it should be made clear to the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland that there is to be no return to Stormont. Those who are opposed to these elections—Sinn Fein and others—are stressing that that is the real purpose behind the process.

419
As regards the noble Viscount's remarks, Sinn Fein has said that it cannot condemn this atrocity because it would lose credibility with the IRA. If it does not condemn this atrocity, it will lose credibility with all free democratic people in these islands.
I freely support all those who say that the peace process is not ended. It will take a Herculean effort by all concerned to bring it back from the death throes in which it has been placed. But I believe that we can succeed in replacing it again.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. His personal experience of being a victim of terrorism is probably greater than any of us in this Chamber.
He is right about the six principles. They are six principles which the Government immediately accepted on publication of the Mitchell Report. I am happy to reiterate our commitment, and to draw the House's attention to Senator Mitchell's suggestion not only that all parties should sign up to those six principles but (and I quote the word he used) that they should also honour them. I believe that the noble Lord made his point far better than I could have done.
As the noble Lord will have noted, my right honourable friend emphasised—he said that we should all emphasise it and I am happy to repeat it now—that what is proposed in the possible elected body which is for discussion (which we do not insist on but it seems to be the only realistic possibility open to us at the moment in the absence of any other suggestion) does not mean a return to Stormont. It is a body whose purpose is clear: to form a basis for teams to negotiate on an all-party process. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of repeating that.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House rightly referred to public opinion in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely crucial in the coming hours, days and week or so, that the revulsion expressed in this House is expressed in every quarter in Northern Ireland, and that it finds a focus. The focus must be, "Give us back our peace". The focus must be a message to the IRA that the people of Northern Ireland will not tolerate a reversion to the dark ages through which they have lived.
In that context, will the noble Viscount refer to the constructive role that the President of the United States could play in that respect? Many fears have been expressed in this House and elsewhere that the role of the American Administration might not be constructive in Northern Ireland. I believe that it has been very constructive. The visit by President Clinton to Northern Ireland showed the most extraordinary outpouring of popular sentiment for the peace process. Are Her Majesty's Government working with the American Administration to make sure that in the days to come the White House will not return to any semi-flirtatious relationship with Sinn Fein but will focus all its efforts on trying to mobilise opinion in Northern Ireland behind a resumption of peace, let alone the peace process?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for enabling me to answer that point.
420
Of course we welcome the constructive role that the United States has played and continues to play. Any further contribution that it can make along the same lines would he extremely welcome.
The main message that we need to get across is exactly the one that President Clinton expressed so eloquently to the men of violence when he was in Belfast. I believe that I quote him exactly in saying: "You are of the past. Your time is gone".
As the former most reverend Primate of all Ireland said a moment ago, the people of Northern Ireland, above all, can make it plain that this kind of behaviour is no longer acceptable to them.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the undesirability of circulating reports which suggested that there could ever be any political reason for a resort to mass violence. Is the Minister aware that in the course of bulletins over the weekend the BBC consistently pressed people to give precisely that kind of answer? If he will not take my word for it, I am sure that a transcript of yesterday's lunch hour programme on Radio 4 would give him ample evidence.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I was not fortunate enough to listen to that programme. However, I can give my noble friend the undertaking that I shall certainly examine what he said and write to him.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
4.48 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("or
( ) the Secretary of State agrees to a representation from an authority that it wishes to exercise its discretion to make payments under this section to any person or persons who are willing and able to secure the provision of their own services,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a compromise amendment. We on these Benches would prefer that the Minister did not restrict the categories of people eligible to receive direct payments. We would prefer that all disabled people who might benefit from them should be free to do so. However, the House voted very narrowly indeed to reject the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The Minister argued basically that the scheme should be phased in gradually so that local authorities should not be overwhelmed. We hope that Amendment No. 2, a fall-back amendment, will be acceptable to the Minister or that she will bring forward her own version.
What does the amendment do? It takes for granted that the local authority would have the power to make direct payments to physically handicapped people under 65, as the Government and the Bill envisage. The purport of the amendment is that, in addition, local

421
authorities would also be able to seek consent from the Secretary of State to extend direct payments to other categories of people within their own local authority. To receive such consent from the Secretary of State, the Minister would have to be satisfied that local authorities were experienced and competent in running direct payments, that they would not be overwhelmed and that it would be a sensible action to take.
What are the advantages? First, some 60 local authorities have been running direct payment schemes in some form or another for up to 14 years. Local authorities are not all starting from the same point. Some are experienced and have led the campaign for direct payments; for others, it is a new venture. If local authorities come in with different experiences, why treat them all the same? Why not recognise that difference as a source of strength? The amendment would ensure that all local authorities would be able to make direct payments to physically handicapped people under 65, but that where the Minister was satisfied that an experienced local authority could expand the scheme he would have the power to give consent for it to do so. For example, 10,15 or 20 of the 140 local social service authorities might seek that consent, and the Minister might agree. That would mean that the Government benefit from a willing pilot group from which both the Government and other local authorities could learn before a more general extension of the scheme is contemplated.
One of the difficulties, particularly in social security and health legislation, is that national legislation reduces the opportunity to learn from feedback, to start pilot schemes and learn from them. The amendment would allow us to learn from feedback, both central government and local authorities. That must be useful.
Secondly, I emphasise that not only are all local authorities starting from different positions and therefore the amendment would give flexibility, but also the Secretary of State must be satisfied that local authorities would be right to take on that power. The Minister will only be satisfied if local authorities are clearly competent to do so and there can be no question of them being overwhelmed or failing to deliver. The right of consent remains firmly with the Government, they control the speed.
The amendment allows the Government to empower local authorities to extend their scheme. Without such an amendment, the Government may unnecessarily tie their own hands until they bring new regulations into force. With the amendment, the Government control the pace, speed and size of any advance beyond the original category. The Government have nothing to lose. They could say "no" to every request if they thought it wise to do so. The amendment would equally give the Government power to say "yes" to those requests which they believe are sensible and appropriate.
Thirdly, if the Secretary of State agreed, the amendment would meet the problems on which we have already touched of local authorities which are already making direct payments to a larger group than the Bill envisages. Some 60 local authorities make direct payments. Most have restrictions of one kind or another,
422
but many go beyond the range of the Bill. We have discussed what may happen to disabled people. The Minister said that they may continue to receive payments through third party schemes. That means that, instead of running one scheme, an experienced local authority has to run not only its own scheme but fund and organise a second third party scheme, doubling rather than reducing the amount of bureaucracy. With our amendment and with the consent of the Minister, the local authority could bring all those it deemed eligible within the framework of one straightforward scheme.
The amendment is modest, sensible, cost-free and is a fall-back amendment on the one which the House so narrowly rejected. It would allow the Secretary of State to agree that individual local authorities could extend the range of their schemes. It would not hold back progressive and experienced local authorities and force them to go at the pace of the newest and slowest local authority. In the process, we would all benefit. It is a win-win amendment. The Secretary of State would benefit from having a pilot scheme on the ground. The local authorities would benefit because they could exercise their discretion according to their experience, with the consent of the Secretary of State. Disabled people would benefit. I hope that the House and the Minister will accept the amendment or that the noble Baroness will come back with something broadly similar. I beg to move.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down after moving the amendment, perhaps she can answer a question. She said that, through the Secretary of State, the Government could reject every request. In those circumstances would all the decisions be subject to judicial review or application for judicial review?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall have to take advice on that, I do not know.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I warmly support the amendment and was delighted to add my name to it. I am not at all happy with the Government's proposals to limit direct payments to physically and sensorily disabled people under 65, nor am I happy with any other possible groupings in the consultation paper. They all have drawbacks. I voted for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rix because it is hardly logical merely to include people with learning difficulties if they also have a physical and sensory impairment, as the Government propose. It would be difficult to justify that in practice when dealing with real people in their homes. I do not like the idea of distinguishing between physically and sensorily disabled people on the one hand and people with learning difficulties on the other, singling out one group for special treatment.
Ideally, direct payment should be payable to all adults who are willing and able to manage them, with help if necessary and with no age limit. Local authority staff who have direct contact with the individual people concerned are in the best position to decide whom to include. However, as the noble Baroness said, the amendment is a sensible half measure to allow the Government, in regulations, to limit direct payments but

423
to allow local authorities to approach the Secretary of State to bring in others. Local authorities are to be allowed to refuse direct payments to individuals, provided they act responsibly and reasonably. So why not let the local authorities act responsibly and reasonably in deciding whom to include?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rix was lost very narrowly. When the Minister replied to it I was cheered, in a way, because she said that local authorities who already issue direct payments to categories other than the ones which she plans to make eligible would be able to continue to do so. That is cheering in a sense, but in a way it is even battier because it means that in some areas a category will receive the payments whereas in other areas it will not. Even in the areas issuing direct payments to non-eligible categories, will authorities be able to bring in more or will they have to say "no" to new claimants? The present wording creates several anomalies.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment or that she will agree to have a long, hard think before Third Reading. Local authorities already making payments to other groups would be put on a sound legal footing and it would act as a pilot study which could be of help to the Government. If the noble Baroness cannot give a faintly encouraging reply, or say that her door is at any rate open to discussions, I should have no hesitation in following the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, into the Lobby if she decides to divide the House.
5 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the amendment is very reasonable and almost cautiously supportive of the Government's stance. It provides in certain situations, where there is the expertise available, for a scheme to be introduced to which the Secretary of State can give his approval. Where the Secretary of State and the powers-that-be think it appropriate a scheme could be brought in. Surely such a proposal cannot offend anyone. It cannot be suggested that it would cause overloading since by its very nature it safeguards against taking on too much. I hope that the Minister will be able to take the idea on board.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this is purely an enabling amendment. It allows local authorities which feel capable of taking on a new category of direct payments to do so where they have the skills and where the need exists. The need will vary from area to area.
Under the amendment, the Secretary of State has a power of veto. He must satisfy himself that it is right and proper to agree to the local authority's request. It is a sensible amendment and one that allows different local authorities to proceed at different rates of learning. It would allow a group of authorities in different parts of the country to expand in slightly different sections so that there would be a much broader learning curve throughout the country as a whole. For instance, half a dozen local authorities might be given permission to make direct grants to those with mental disabilities. In other parts of the country another half dozen could be
424
allowed to give grants to people over the age of 65. The knowledge acquired of how grants are best applied could be disseminated throughout all local authorities. It would be useful to learn how pitfalls were overcome. The amendment is eminently sensible; and I strongly approve of it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I have said throughout the course of this Bill we are bringing a new way of ensuring that people's needs are met into the heart of community care. As the noble Baroness rightly said, that is what lies behind the Government's proposal to restrict eligibility.
We want to limit the scope of direct payments for two reasons. The first is to allow local authorities to focus on a relatively small group as they begin to make direct payments. We do not want to put at risk the long-term future of direct payments by being over-ambitious in the short term. The second reason is so that the Government can assess how direct payments are working. It is a completely new way to deliver community care. It is radically different from the way local authorities currently arrange community care services. In many respects it is far more revolutionary than were the community care reforms that we introduced in 1993.
The Government want to limit the scale of direct payments so that we can see how they work in practice on a controlled basis. We shall need to see whether the framework we have put in place is the right one. Of course the policy proposals are those which we believe are best. They create the environment which we believe is most likely to lead to successful implementation.
But we are moving into uncharted waters. Existing experience is limited. Direct payments have not previously been in the mainstream of community care. We want to see how things go, how this policy works. Then we shall be able to judge whether we need to adjust the national framework.
The amendment would clearly undermine our second aim in restricting eligibility. If we make exceptions for some local authorities then the national framework is haphazard and it becomes far more difficult to judge on a national basis how direct payments are working. I also find it difficult to see how the provision might work in practice. It would be extremely cumbersome and bureaucratic for the Secretary of State to have to review every application in order to exercise his discretion. A great deal of information would be needed to form a proper judgment as to whether each individual local authority is in a position to make direct payments to a wider population.
The new system has to be fair. It is essential that there is a criterion that can be used in order for the Secretary of State to make his judgments. This Bill, when enacted, has to be fair to local authorities, to those who might benefit, and also to the Secretary of State. It would be difficult for him to retain his control if, as my noble friend Lord Hayhoe suggested, every decision could he subject to judicial review. That would put the Secretary of State in an impossible position.
I return briefly to the third party schemes mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Hollis. As I said in the previous debate, people on

425
existing schemes could continue to receive direct payments. To clarify that, it is up to local authorities to ensure that their schemes are legal. If schemes are currently legal this Bill will not make them illegal. If schemes are currently illegal, then they may or may not be legalised by the Bill. As I said, it cannot be the aim of the Bill to legalise ultra vires arrangements. We are setting the legal framework that we believe will work best. That must be our aim.
The amendment would increase the variation between local authorities in the way they implement the legislation. That would make it extremely difficult for the Government to see, on a national basis, how direct payments were working. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was very surprised indeed at that reply. Given the discussions that have taken place, I really had hoped that the Minister would think this a sensible, modest, "compromise" way in which we could all benefit from the experience of local authorities acting, as it were, as a pilot scheme for the Minister.
When it suits the Government—as with in-work benefits for couples and single people without children—they are very happy to have pilot schemes. They do not refer back to the need to have all schemes nationally implemented across the board all at the same time. When it does not suit the Government, the opposite argument is used.
The Minister gave three arguments; first, that she wanted the scheme to focus on relatively small groups and not be over-ambitious; secondly, that she wished to see how it was first working; and, thirdly, that she did not want the national framework to become haphazard. I suggest that the amendment addresses all three concerns.
First, for virtually all local authorities, except where the Minister gives explicit consent to do otherwise, the scheme will focus on the relatively small group of physically disabled people under 65. It will not, in the Minister's words, be over-ambitious. It is probable that only those local authorities which already have experience of, and are implementing, a scheme will be given consent by the Secretary of State to continue it within the existing framework. Therefore, the argument of wanting to focus on a relatively small group remains unaffected.
Secondly, the Minister said that she wished to assess how the scheme was working. All the Minister will be doing is assessing how part of the scheme will be working—that part which applies to those who are physically handicapped. We offer the opportunity for the Minister to see, in selected areas where the Secretary of State has confidence in the local authorities, how an extension of the scheme might work and therefore to see whether, on that basis, it makes good sense to extend it to all local authorities.
Most governments would be delighted to have such an opportunity to learn from willing pilot pioneers on the ground. In that way, and only in that way, can we
426
assess how the scheme is working and, equally importantly, how it would work were it to be extended. But the Minister refuses the opportunity to learn from the experience of local authorities willing to pioneer with the support of the Secretary of State.
Thirdly, the Minister said that she did not want the national framework to become haphazard. That argument does not hold up. First, the national scheme will already be haphazard since it is a discretionary scheme. A quarter of all local authorities could decide tomorrow not to implement the Bill. The scheme will remain discretionary. In that sense it will be haphazard by its very nature. For the Government to complain that the amendment makes a haphazard scheme haphazard is perverse. Secondly, the amendment will allow the Government to learn what would happen if the categories were extended to other local authorities—if one moved from a narrow minimum standard to a wider more comprehensive one. One cannot learn from experience if that experience is not permitted to be piloted. Of what are the Government frightened? Local authorities which are currently involved in running such schemes or have that kind of experience will seek consent. The Minister has to be persuaded that they are competent to accept those schemes and to run them. If the Minister is not so satisfied, he will say no. Why should the Minister deny herself the power to say yes or no to local authorities which believe that they are competent to extend this scheme? Why should she deny herself that power? It is absurd, particularly when in most other fields of social security legislation the Government say that they want pilot schemes in order to learn from them and understand in what ways it makes sense to apply a scheme nationally.
I truly believe that this is a win-win scheme; and a win-win amendment. It is a win-win for the Government as they can learn from experience; a win-win for those local authorities which are already supporting disabled people beyond the scope of the Bill; and a win-win for disabled people—all at no cost to public expense. I am so disappointed by the Minister's reply. I had hoped that she would accept the amendment or give us some encouragement. I shall test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may comment. She stressed the positive aspects of the amendment. In Clause 1(6) of the Bill there is a fair amount of discretion. All the good things of which she spoke that the Government should seek will surely be available to the Government under subsection (6). Therefore, I cannot see why she pushes the amendment, when the good things that she mentioned seem to me—in my limited judgment of reading legislation, and I always acknowledge that it is easy to misunderstand it—to be covered by subsection (6). That subsection allows regulations to be made to:
"make different provision for different cases, and … include such supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provisions".
That is a very wide power that is available. All the good things—I stress that, as indeed the noble Baroness stressed it when she spoke in favour of her

427
amendment—could be done. Therefore, I cannot see why she should press her amendment. I hope that she has a response.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord—in a phrase often used from the Government Benches—is absolutely right. Clause 1(6) does by regulation what the amendment seeks to do by an individual local authority making application to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord does not need me to tell him that there is a world of difference between the Secretary of State having the power to respond to individual applications and requiring each application to be laid by regulatory process.
Whether that is done by the negative procedure or the affirmative, it may take up time in both Houses for a judgment which I believe is very properly exercised by the Minister or Secretary of State in a professional capacity. The Minister will have to make that judgment anyway before laying a regulation. Why do we need to check that in Parliament? So there is not only a local authority making a decision about whether it wishes to empower a disabled person and the Secretary of State confirming the judgment of the local authority, but now Parliament has to confirm the judgment of the Secretary of State to confirm the judgment of the local authority. That is infinitely too cumbersome for what is suggested. The spirit of the noble Lord's remarks will best be met by this amendment. I hope that he will support it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may just ask her—she has clearly thought through the amendment carefully—what criteria she would expect the Secretary of State to use when making a judgment as to whether a local authority was or was not able to implement the scheme broadly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should expect the Minister to seek discussions with the ADSS—the Association of Directors of Social Services—and agree the common criteria. That would be the right way to proceed, following the response from the consultation documents. The kind of experience that I should expect the Secretary of State to take into account is, for example, whether an authority—such as, say, Kingston or Hampshire County Council—is currently running a third party direct payments scheme in which, for example, people who have learning disabilities or who are, say, over 65 are currently receiving payment. On that basis, the Secretary of State may well be satisfied that those authorities have that experience, are competent and should be encouraged to act as pilot schemes. That is the kind of consideration involved. There may well be others. They will be drawn up in discussion with the Association of Directors of Social Services, but those are the kind of criteria that I have in mind.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kilbracken,L

Addington, L. [Teller..]

Kirkhill,L

Ailesbury, M.

Longford,E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis,L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Borrie, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNally, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nelson, E.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rix, L.

Geraint, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gregson, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Healey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff,L

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Warnock. B.

Hughes, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wharton, B.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cadman, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ailsa, M.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Astor, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chesham, L [Teller.]

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Beloff, L.

Courtown, E.

Blaker, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blatch, B.

Crathorne, L.

Boardman, L.

Cuckney, L.

Bowness, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Denham, L.

Brentford, V.

Downshire, M.

Brigstocke, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elles, B.

Burnham. L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Faithfull, B.

429

Ferrers, E.

Milverton,L.

Flather, B.

Mottistone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gage, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Moyne, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Munster, E.

Goschen, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Newall, L.

Greenway, L.

Norrie, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Northesk, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Harlech, L.

Orkney, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hemphill, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Rawlings, B.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rennell, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renwick, L.

Killearn, L.

Romney, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lucas, L.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

McConnell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Teviot, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) An authority shall not unreasonably refuse a disabled person access to direct payments from a scheme for the making of such payments to which subsection (1) above refers.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 will ensure that a local authority may not unreasonably refuse direct payments to a disabled person who falls within the category of eligibility. In Committee the Minister said that if local authorities acted unreasonably or arbitrarily there was redress through the local authorities' complaints procedure, the local government ombudsman or judicial review. The Minister went on to say that, as local authorities were not allowed to act unreasonably, they would not do so and, if they did, there were abundant mechanisms to check their behaviour.
All that is entirely true and we all expect and hope that local authorities which introduce direct payments will be committed to making them successful. However, a local authority could come to a decision which does not further the interests of the disabled person if the present wording of the Bill is retained. At the moment, as long as a local authority has taken all relevant considerations into account and has not had regard to irrelevant considerations, it is unlikely to be held to be acting unreasonably unless its actions are so perverse that no reasonable authority could possibly act in that way.
A high standard of proof is required. It can entail a long and costly argument in which a disabled person may hesitate to engage, especially if, should they lose, they may then be regarded by the local authority as a difficult client. Amendment No. 3 will ensure that what the Minister intends to happen will happen. It will tip the checks and balances a little further in favour of the disabled person. The amendment makes the responsibility of the local authority unambiguous. It makes it clear that someone who is eligible for direct payments will receive them unless it is unreasonable to make that assumption. The test of reasonableness implied in the amendment is one that is well understood in professional local authority circles. I hope therefore that the House and the Minister will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I added my name to the amendment because I felt that it would be useful to have this message spelt out on the face of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reminded us, in Committee the Minister said that an aggrieved person would be able to seek redress from the local authorities' complaints procedure, the ombudsman, judicial review or a combination of all three. But none of that is well known to the public at large.
I am sure that none of us, including the Minister, wants disabled people to go through such lengthy and difficult procedures. Therefore, while there may not be a strict legal requirement to repeat the need for reasonableness on the face of the Bill, there are good reasons for doing so. It will remind local authorities of their obligations in respect of direct payments and inform disabled people of their right to be treated reasonably. It will also remove any doubt that may arise in future, through some legalistic quirk of fate, that local authorities may not unreasonably withhold direct payments from an otherwise qualified person. I hope therefore that the Minister feels able either to accept the amendment or to table something similar to go on to the face of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if we are to state that people who are qualified to receive direct payments should receive them if they so choose, and there is a legal requirement for them so to do, why not say it as loudly and clearly as possible? The best way of doing that is to include the requirement on the face of the Bill. If it does not change anything, it will at least ensure that the message is unambiguous. I support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is word for word the same as an amendment moved at Committee stage. I do not believe that much has changed since then. At that time my noble friend Lady Cumberlege convincingly pointed out that the amendment was not necessary. Why, therefore, is it suddenly felt to be necessary?
I do not believe that while Bills are progressing through Parliament one should keep inserting statements that local authorities or other bodies should not act

431
unreasonably. As my noble friend said at the last stage, it would he illegal for a local authority to act unreasonably, and nothing has changed since then.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, local authorities already have a responsibility to act reasonably. No amendment to the Bill is needed to prevent local authorities from exercising their discretion unreasonably. In any case, local authorities should not make whimsical decisions. They should consider whether direct payments are appropriate for someone who wishes to receive them, taking into account all relevant matters. That includes a person's wishes and ability to benefit from direct payment, as well as other considerations. We would normally expect that to mean that like clients are treated in like ways. Local authorities should not treat clients with similar needs and a similar ability to manage direct payments differently unless they have good reason to do so. If there is a good reason, we should not legislate to prevent them from taking it into account. They cannot treat like clients differently unless it is reasonable to do so.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that a similar amendment was moved at Committee stage. That is correct. In her speech at that stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the exercise of a local authority's discretion must be capable of being reviewed against a test of reasonableness in the appeals procedure. That is already the case without this amendment, since local authorities must exercise their discretion reasonably. As the noble Baroness said, people can use the complaints procedure to challenge the local authority's decision not to offer them direct payments. They can expect to be told the reasons for the local authority's decision. If anyone is dissatisfied with the outcome, he or she may ask the local government ombudsman to investigate or apply to the courts for judicial review.
To go any further would effectively limit local authorities' discretion to decide whether direct payments are appropriate in each individual case. Local authorities must have discretion to base their decisions on the wider interests of the local population—for instance, taxpayers and other service users—and not just on the interests of the particular individual concerned. They have a responsibility to obtain value for money and to use their resources to meet the needs of all people in need of assistance in their locality, not just one individual.
Local authorities must act reasonably. It would not be appropriate to restrict their discretion further. I urge your Lordships not to support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the Minister have basically said the same thing—that the amendment is unnecessary because local authorities already have to act reasonably. When moving the amendment, I tried to say, although obviously I was unclear, that the current test of reasonableness embedded in local authorities' procedures is a high standard of proof—that only if no reasonable authority could have acted in such a way would a test of unreasonableness be upheld. That is
432
quite tough compared with what the wording in the amendment would ensure. It requires that local authorities may not unreasonably withhold their consent.
However, the Minister's words are in Hansard and they do enlarge on the issue. Given the time and the discussion we have had, I have no wish to press the House for a view on the matter. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 19 and insert ("shall, in determining how much to pay a person under that subsection, not require him to contribute more than it appears to the authority that it is reasonably practicable for him to contribute").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 also visits an issue which we discussed in Committee. I was not entirely happy with the answer we received at that time and we hope that the Minister may have thought again. One of the reasons for bringing back on Report amendments which were discussed at Committee stage is in the hope that the Minister will have taken further opinions on the issue, reflected further and decided to move a little beyond the Government's position in Committee.
The amendment seeks to provide for a more equitable basis for levying charges. The basis for local authority charging for social services—for example, for home helps—is founded in the 1983 Act. It says that an individual may be charged where the local authority is satisfied that it is,
"reasonably practicable for him to pay".
Where local authorities provide a free service, the individual will receive the service free; where his means are very modest he may contribute little or nothing for a service for which a charge must be made. What the amendment seeks to do is to bring the same wording, "reasonably practicable", of the 1983 Act which applies to charging policies for services into the charging policy effectively for direct payments. There will then be a level playing field between the two so that the assumptions about charging which apply to services will apply to direct payments in which an income will be offset against the money received.
The words of the Bill do not do that. Instead, the Government use the phrase,
"have regard to his financial circumstances".
That is a much harsher test than that of the 1983 Act, which uses the words "reasonably practicable". What this appears to presume is a means test, even though, where services are concerned, no means test is involved—the service is free.
If the Minister is anxious to ensure, as I believe she is, that there is a level playing field and that there should be no difference between the two, the best way of doing so is to have the same wording in the Bill. If we want local authorities to approach the charging claw-back on direct payments in the same way as they charge for services, we should have the same words. If the Minister wants them to do it in the same way, she should use the same words. If she does not want them to do it in the

433
same way and there are different words, that will suggest different practices. The Minister has suggested to us that she does not want that to remain. We want the situation to be unambiguous.
In Committee the Minister said that she would issue Section 7 guidance to clarify the wording. But why issue guidance to clarify the wording of the Bill when one can clarify the wording by amendment of the Bill? Why seek to tidy up ambiguity by guidance and regulation when one can tidy up ambiguity on the face of the Bill itself? Yet, by conceding that, the Minister agreed that there could be cause for concern and that local authorities might need to have further regulation or guidance. Why go for clarifying it by regulation or guidance when one can do it on the face of the Bill? I very much hope that the Minister will accept that the simplest and cleanest way to ensure a level playing field is to have the wording of the 1983 Act applying to services applying also to the claw-back mechanisms of direct payments. If there is any difference in the wording, local authorities can be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not expect them to behave in like ways in like circumstances.
I have one final point. Will the Minister may it clear that in assessing charging local authorities should be asked to take into account any extra expenditure that may be incurred because of the service user's disability or frailty? It would be helpful to have the Minister's views on that point. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment which the noble Baroness has moved so clearly and comprehensively. In Committee I moved an amendment which sought identical means tests. I accept now that the word "identical" could present practical difficulties so I have now joined forces with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I accept that we and the Government are at one in not wanting the means tests for services and for direct payments to allow a local authority to influence the decision either towards in-house services or towards private arrangements. The amendment seems to be a practical way of achieving that. I hope the Minister will agree to it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we share the concern, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has said, that neither people who receive services nor those who receive direct payments should be treated more favourably than the other. On the question of the financial contribution which each is expected to make towards the cost of their care, they should be treated alike.
The Bill gives local authorities the discretion, when calculating the amount of direct payments, as to whether they require the person concerned to make a financial contribution. It does not require authorities to do so. If a local authority considers that an individual should contribute to the cost of his care, it would be unreasonable for the authority to expect him to contribute more than he can afford. The Bill also gives local authorities discretion on how they take someone's financial circumstances into account. This is intended to
434
mirror the situation which currently exists in relation to charges for non-residential care where local authorities can decide whether to charge and how much to charge.
The Government's aim is to avoid perverse financial incentives in agreeing or refusing direct payments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, we believe that the best way to ensure equivalent treatment is to issue guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The guidance will stress that local authorities must treat people fairly and should treat both those who receive services and those who receive direct payments in an equivalent manner—that is, when considering the financial contribution that people make towards the cost of their care, those receiving direct payments will be treated in the same way under the authority's charging policy as they would have been had they been receiving the equivalent services. Of course, that still gives the local authority discretion over what charging policy is.
The Government have considered carefully the alternative of introducing language similar to that in existing legislation on charging, as is suggested in the amendment of the noble Baroness. However, to reproduce the words in existing legislation will not change the effect of Clause 1(2). We would still need to issue statutory guidance to ensure that direct payment recipients and service recipients received equivalent treatment. We have considered all of the options and do not see a need to amend the wording of the Bill. We believe that this amendment would have no effect. I urge your Lordships not to support it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, even if she believes that additional guidance will have to be offered, will she explain the objection to the use of the same words? The Minister has assured us that the aim is to avoid unfairness and that guidance will still need to be issued so that the effect is the same, but what is wrong with using the same words?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we simply do not believe that it is necessary. The amendment as it is set out will have no effect, and therefore we believe that it is pointless to put it on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister says that the amendment is not necessary and that it will have no effect, but she has to have some words on the face of the Bill. Why do we not have the same words on the face of the Bill for direct payments as for services? That will make the situation unambiguous as far as local authorities and disabled people are concerned. The Minister may argue that it is not necessary, but she has not said why the same words should not be on the face of the Bill. What is wrong with having the same words?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I have made the situation perfectly plain. We do not want to clutter up the legislation with additional information that is not necessary. The amendment as set

435
out here will have absolutely no effect. Therefore, we believe that it is ridiculous for the Government to accept it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have not carried out a word count to see whether very many more words will be added, but I am convinced that this amendment will add considerable clarity to the intention of the Government. We agree with everything that the Minister has proposed. We want a level playing field. We do not want perverse incentives for people to move from charges to services, or hack to charges, because there are different financial implications in terms of what they have to pay. The easiest and most straightforward way to avoid any such misunderstanding is to use the same words on the face of this Bill as in the existing Act of 1983. I have not heard the Minister give a single reason why the words cannot simply be changed, because the 1983 words can replace the words in this Bill. If they need a little tidying up we have plenty of time to do it. We have all the Commons stage for that purpose. At least it will make clear what the Minister has in mind, instead of the Minister having to resort to guidance to explain what is in her mind.
I thought that legislation should be clear, simple and understandable. Our amendment would do precisely that on the issue of financial arrangements. I remain baffled. I understand why most of the time the Government do not accept our amendments: they cost money; they are ideologically unacceptable; they are administratively unworkable, or whatever. But I believe that as to a proportion of the amendments—perhaps 5 or 10 per cent.—if the Government had thought of them they would have proposed or accepted them. However, because they come from these Benches there is a knee-jerk reaction to resist, resist, resist. Here is an amendment that does everything that the Minister says she wants to do. It establishes a level playing field on the face of the Bill by repeating the wording used in the previous Act to establish the charging pattern for services. The Minister has not given one good reason why the words should not be changed, except that it is not necessary because we all know that it means the same thing anyway. If it means the same thing, why not use the same words?
Although I had not intended to do so, I seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
5.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Action,L.

Borrie,L.

Addington,L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

Barnett,L.

Clinton-Davis,L.

Beaumont of Whitley,L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe,L.

Birk,L.

Craigavon,L.

Blackstone,B.

Darcy(de Knayth),B.

436

David, B.

McNair, L.

Desai, L.

McNally, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L. [Teller]

Mason of Barnsley. L.

Falkland, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Monkswell, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nelson, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Gregson, L.

Palmer, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Healey, L.

Rix, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Judd, L.

Warnock, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faithfull, B.

Ailsa, M.

Ferrers, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Flather, B.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gage, V.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Beloff, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Blaker, L.

Goschen, V.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Bowness, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harlech, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Brentford, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hemphill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Burnham, L.

Hooper, B.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Inglewood, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsay, E.

Cannock, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Long, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lucas, L.

Chelmsford, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Courtown, E.

Mersey, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crathorne, L.

Milverton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Downshire, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

437

Orkney,E.

Skelmersdale,L

Park of Monmouth, B.

Soulsby of swaffham Prior,L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,L.

Strange,B.

Rankeillour,L.

Strathclyde,L [Teller.]

Rees,L.

Sudeley,L

Rennell,L.

Swinfen,L.

Renwick,L.

Thomas of Gwydir,L.

Romney,E.

Trefgarne,L.

Trumpington,B.

Seccombe,B.

Ullswater,V.

Shaw of Northstead,L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Shrewsbury,E.

Whitelaw,V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("(2A) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to the determination of how much to pay in respect of the provision of a service which, apart from this section, would be provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment to ensure consistency with existing legislation. Our intention is that local authorities should treat both those who receive services and those who receive direct payments in an equivalent manner. When local authorities decide the financial contribution people make to the cost of their care, they should treat both groups alike. Local authorities do not have the power to charge for services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. These are aftercare services for people leaving hospital after compulsory detention under mental health legislation. This amendment is needed to make clear that that is also the case if direct payments are made instead of those services. Where local authorities do not have the power to charge, then neither should they have the power to take into account a person's financial circumstances when setting the level of his or her direct payment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are happy to support the Minister's amendment. The Minister has just given the exact reply which, if only I had had access to the departmental staff, I should have given on the previous amendment. She wants words to say what they mean and to mean what they say and for them to be consistent with previous legislation. Obviously, that is wise, but I only wish that the same wisdom had been applied to the previous amendment because then we would not have needed to have a vote and to take up the time of Parliament as we did.
Of course, we support the intention to be clear. We support the idea that the Bill should say what is meant and for the provisions to be consistent with previous legislation. We should like such a principle to be accepted here and in all other aspects of the Bill. I do not know how the Minister could keep a straight face when she moved the amendment and gave her reasons for doing so, having stated precisely the opposite just five minutes previously. However, we support the noble Baroness on this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis,
438
who will not he surprised by that because I think that the reasons given for this amendment—about being consistent with other legislation in England and Wales—are quite different from the reasons given before the three recent Divisions when it was said that the amendments were not necessary.
Although I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to reply to me now and I do not want to hold up proceedings, I should like to raise a small but important point. In relation to the equivalent Scottish clause of the Bill, Clause 4, is my noble friend able to say that the Government are happy that there is no inconsistency between Clause 4 and any Scottish mental health legislation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her generous comments, but should point out that no Section 7 guidance is involved here.
To reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I understand that no amendment is needed in Scotland as local authorities in Scotland have the power to charge for their equivalent to our Section 117 services. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert ("except where the person to whom payment is made is living alone or with another person who is unable to meet all of his care needs").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the question of who may receive direct payments: relatives within the household and relatives outside the household. We explored the problem in Committee when a number of anomalies were raised. The Government are proposing to forbid by regulation the possibility of a disabled person employing a relative who lives in their home and paying them by direct payments. The Government are proposing to forbid by guidance—exceptions can be made—disabled people from employing a relative, such as a niece, who does not live within the household but lives, say, the other side of town.
In Committee the Government offered two arguments for extending the number of people who might not be paid with the direct payments. First, they said that they did not want to formalise informal care arrangements by paying relatives who were already offering family help. Secondly, the Minister said that the provisions offered protection for a disabled person who might not want to employ a relative and who would certainly find it harder to sack a relative than would be the case with any other employee. The Minister is right on that. Behind that lies a psychological truth which I shall share with the Minister: many disabled people receiving direct payments would prefer an impersonal employer/employee relationship which they control rather than to pay money to a family carer on whom they may depend. There is no difference between us on that point.
Having said that, however, I believe that the Government's position in their draft consultation paper goes too far and, as currently drafted, is too inflexible.

439
When we explored this in Committee, we found that it produced all sorts of unnecessary tangles and complications. Although I respect the Government's concerns, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment which states that where someone is living alone or with someone else who is unable to meet all their care needs, they can employ a relative who is not a member of the household or living in the same house and pay that person with the direct payments. As I have suggested, such a person could be a niece or a brother-in-law living on the other side of the city.
There are two arguments behind our amendment. One relates to choice and the other to administrative practicalities. The Government have already conceded that local authorities may make exceptions with regard to relatives living outside the household who may receive direct payments. They may make exceptions in difficult situations, such as in rural areas where there might not be much choice. In ethnic communities there may be strong social and cultural pressures to employ only a relative within the family. The situation of someone with AIDS was also mentioned in Committee. All those examples relate to instances where it might not be possible to find someone from outside the household to act as a carer.
Perhaps I may cite another situation. I refer to the fact that somebody who receives direct payments may have fluctuating needs because of, for example, multiple sclerosis or severe rheumatoid arthritis. A relative living outside the home may be able to offer far more willing flexibility than would be possible within a formal employer/employee contract in which the carer clocks in for so many hours.
The first reason for saying that local authorities should permit disabled people to employ relatives who live outside the household for direct payments is that that will enrich and widen the choice available to disabled people of those they employ. Secondly—the practical argument—it would align the question of direct payments by local authorities with the system currently in operation within the ILF. The ILF permits disabled people to use direct payments to employ relatives who live outside the family home. The amendment would bring local authority practice into line with that of the ILF. It works well.
If we do not have the amendment, it could mean that a severely disabled person was receiving money from both sources. After all, direct payments from the local authority would go up to £200. ILF money comes in for the needs that can be purchased for the sum of between £200 and £500. One then clocks back to the local authority. Someone who needs two or three carers may well be receiving money from the local authority and the ILF. Let us say that a person's care package costs £350 a week. That means that they would be required to employ someone who is not a relative within or without the household for the local authority money but could employ a relative who lives outside the household for the tranche of money that comes from the ILF. That is silly. It means that instead of having one or two people producing continuous care, a disabled person has
440
to chop and change employees in order to fit the different rules applying to the local authority and the ILF for no good reason.
Thirdly, if a relative is living outside the home and is giving up the opportunity of paid work to work for a disabled person, why should that person not be paid? As with the ILF, we believe that it might be unreasonable to pay a relative living in the home because that constitutes being part of a family. However, a relative living outside the home (niece, nephew, brother-in-law) cannot be said to be part of the immediate family in the same way. It is not unreasonable that they should he paid and not merely exploited.
I believe the Government are afraid that unreasonable pressure would be applied where the relative lives outside the home. But that can be vetted by the local authority ensuring that the social worker talks through with the disabled person, at the point when the care package is constructed, the advantages and disadvantages of employing a relative who lives outside the home. If, after going through the advantages and disadvantages, the disabled person still thinks that that is the best choice for him or her, that choice should be respected. It is not the Government's job to restrict the choice of a disabled person, providing that that choice is an informed one and public money is not being abused. Otherwise, the Government are infantilising disabled people—protecting them from the consequences of employing a relative in case they cannot sack them. It is not the Government's job to do that.
The whole point of the Bill is to treat disabled people as moral adults, able to make informed and realistic choices about whom they employ to care for them with direct payments. If the disabled person seeks to employ a relative living outside the home, as they currently do with the ILF—it is not a requirement but a right—which may be sensible not just for those living in rural areas, ethnic communities or someone with AIDS but in a whole range of circumstances that we cannot currently envisage, then disabled people's choices should be respected. I hope that the House agrees. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the noble Baroness puts forward a persuasive case, but I am worried about various aspects on a human level. I am worried about the employer-employee relationship. Elderly people needing help from a relative outside the home are not always objective. They will say things such as, "This is my niece. I am very fond of her. I do not think that she does the job awfully well, but she is my niece and she is out of work, so I would like her to have the job."
To provide good help for the disabled person there needs to be a proper, businesslike arrangement between employer and employee. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness. But if a disabled person has care from someone outside who is not a relative, that brings in another stream of interest.
What is a relative? Is it a cousin? Is it a niece? Have we qualified who is a relative? I feel that out of generosity a handicapped person who needs someone to

441
help will not choose wisely. They will choose kindly. We should stand by the proper, businesslike employer/employee relationship.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I put my name to the amendment, because, although I agree broadly with the proposal not to allow relatives to be paid as a helper—I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said—I have reservations. I believe, incidentally, that a relative is defined in the consultation document. I believe that it should be possible to employ a close relative living elsewhere without treating the case as exceptional. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, the practice of employing a family member not living in the same household has worked well with the ILF. Why should it not work with direct payments?
Another important point relates to the Government's requirement, set down in the consultation paper at paragraph 33, that disabled people will be expected to make sensible arrangements so that they have adequate cover in an emergency. For example, if one of the usual assistants is taken ill I should have thought that it would be normal to ask a relative to stand by in case of emergencies. The current proposal would preclude payment to a relative in those circumstances. Is that reasonable or sensible? Perhaps the Minister will comment.
I come now to the question of the lodger and other persons living in, which the amendment does not cover. It is a point I raised in Committee. Paragraph 24 of the consultative paper and the Minister in Committee, at col. 411, say that such people cannot be paid unless they are people who have been specifically recruited to be live-in personal assistants. That means that a disabled person who has someone other than a close relative living in the household (a lodger or a friend) would be precluded from arranging for that person to become the helper unless the person came into the household after the disabled person had decided on direct payment.
The wording suggests that the person would have to be hired as a helper and then be given accommodation. That is too restrictive. It would rule out direct payments to people taking lodgers whom they subsequently decide to hire as helpers. There is surely nothing wrong with such a situation. It should be allowed. Under the ILF a lodger already in the house would be allowed. That is something we can perhaps clear up. I urge the Minister to think seriously about the question of the lodger or the friend; it is an important point. The amendment does not deal with it and, as I said, we may have to return to the point on Third Reading if the Minister cannot give us any words of comfort. Meanwhile, I support the amendment warmly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I shall say just a few words on what the noble Baroness has just said. She is right. For the purposes of consultation there is a definition in paragraph 24 of the consultation paper. It is clear, except for one point that I believe arises a great deal nowadays. At the end it says, "sister, or spouse, or
442
partner". "Partner" is something which I think everyone understands but as far as I know it is not defined here or in other legislation.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take the matter away for study. There is the question of the position in rural areas and the difficulty of finding carers who are acceptable in certain ethnic groups, particularly certain strict religious sects. It would be useful to look at the matter and make certain that we have sensible provisions on the face of the Bill by the time that it becomes law.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I feel that the employer/employee relationship would change the views of the family. Very often members of a family are only too glad that someone is coming in to help. Family members will give help willingly and voluntarily and through love. I feel that the exceptional circumstances about which we have heard provide the necessary flexibility and I could not support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, direct payments will be an alternative to community care services which would otherwise be arranged by the local authority. They are not intended to replace existing support networks within families and communities. As my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lady Seccombe said, the relationship which someone has with family or friends who provide care is very different from the relationship someone has with a person who they are employing to provide care. The reason for the provision in Clause 1(3) is to avoid creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis.
We agree that there is a balance to be drawn between, on the one hand, preventing the formalisation of informal care and, on the other hand, not prohibiting sensible and appropriate arrangements. I can see that this amendment is also designed to find this balance.
In our consultation document we have set out our proposals for setting limits on who may be paid to provide care using a direct payment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said, we propose to make regulations under this provision which will prohibit people who get direct payments from paying their spouse, partner or a close relative living in the same household. In addition, we intend to issue guidance to say that it is not appropriate to use direct payments to employ or contract with close relatives who live elsewhere, or other people living in the same household, unless the latter are people who have been specifically recruited to be live-in personal assistants. Local authorities would have the power to make exceptions to this guidance in exceptional cases, where they were satisfied that there was no other way to find a suitable person to provide care. We are consulting on these proposals for regulations and guidance, and will take account of the consultation responses, and the comments of this House, before making our final decision.
Both the Government's proposals and this amendment seek to create a framework that sets some limits, but also contains flexibilities. The difference

443
between us is that our proposals allow flexibility in the way those limits are applied to individuals, whereas this amendment allows flexibility in deciding which individuals are affected by the limits set in regulations. Our proposals apply the same rules to everyone, but allow for some exceptions if the circumstances merit it. This amendment applies one set of rules to one group of people, and a completely different set of rules to everyone else.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), referred to the Independent Living Fund. We are seeking to draw a balance between, on the one hand, preventing formalisation of care, as I have said, and, on the other hand, prohibiting sensible and appropriate arrangements. We believe that the ILF is a useful model and we propose to use the same restrictions in regulations as applied to the ILF. But there is no reason why that should be a blueprint. There are similarities between direct payments and the ILF but there are also differences. Direct payments will be part of mainstream provision and will potentially be available to a much wider range of people to pay for a wider range of services. They will also involve potentially much larger sums of money. We are seeking to provide the best framework for those circumstances. As I said, we are consulting on the restrictions that we propose to make in regulations and guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked how people would manage in an emergency when it may be sensible to use a relative. We are consulting on the restrictions and we shall consider very carefully whether that should be an issue which should be brought into final guidance.
The noble Baroness asked also about lodgers who live in the home. Again, we would expect local authorities to judge whether it is appropriate to make an exception to the guidance in those cases—I suppose so long as the lodger is not a partner, in which case we enter different territory.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that relatives might offer more flexible hours than non-related employees. We have been told that one of the advantages of the direct payments scheme is that it allows a disabled person more flexibility. Disabled people can dictate the hours that should be worked and as far as we are aware they have not found it difficult to find people who are prepared to work flexible hours. Our proposals allow for exceptions as and when local authorities feel that that is appropriate.
We believe that our proposals are sensible and appropriate. They allow for some flexibility in order not to prohibit sensible arrangements and they are fair because they apply the same rules to everyone. Therefore, I urge your Lordships not to support the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will she tell the House whether there is a legal definition of the word "partner" in the sense in which it has been used this evening?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have been on this territory' before when the noble and learned Lord,
444
Lord Hailsham, asked me to define the verb to "ring-fence". On that occasion, I referred my noble and learned friend to the dictionary and said that I would find a definition for him. I will search.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think that the definition which the Minister seeks may be found in social security legislation dealing with cohabitation. There is a notion of cohabitation which is well established in social security law. That may he helpful to the Minister.
I understand the anxieties raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. But she referred to an elderly person perhaps employing a niece who lived outside the home. But as we have lost the previous amendment, elderly people will not receive direct payments. Therefore, the people who may feel pressured in the way that the noble Baroness described would not be eligible for direct payments in any event because those payments are confined to recipients aged under 65. Therefore, that situation is less likely to arise.
As regards who may be eligible and who counts as a relative—and I say this in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and the Minister—we are talking about close relatives and the family. But one can see that if we look at paragraph 24 of the consultation document, we are not talking about close family at all. One of the problems is that the number and range of people caught by the provision is extremely wide indeed.
I have always understood "close family" to mean children, parents, siblings and spouse. But many others may be banned from employment as carers. Such a person may be somebody living outside the home, living across the city, who may be, for example, a trained nurse or someone who has worked for the local authority in the past as a home help carer. It may be somebody with a great deal of relevant experience who the disabled person would wish to employ because they are familiar and comfortable with each other. The Government's definition of a "close relative" is a parent, parent-in-law, aunt, uncle, grandparent, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law and also a stepson or daughter, brother, sister, or the spouse or partner of any of those. Therefore, the partner of a stepson living across the city is regarded as a close relative. I suggest that the Minister may wish to consult a dictionary as regards what counts as a "close relative". Can a close relative really be said to be a stepson or stepdaughter or the partner of the stepson or stepdaughter? The partner of a stepson may well have been a nurse. Indeed, they may have come into contact through the needs of the disabled person. Apparently such a person is to be banned from being employed.
I would have far less of a problem if we were talking about immediate family. One understands that the Government may not wish to pay for the care that one expects to be provided within the family. I do not believe that there is any disagreement about that. We go along with the distinction which the Minister draws

445
between somebody being within the household and outside the household. But the point is that the categories of people who may not be employed are so widely drawn that it seems to narrow unreasonably the choice of people from which a disabled person may wish to choose a carer who may have to perform such intimate tasks as, for example, toileting and bathing.
It seems to me that the real issue is to ensure that the disabled person is not pressured against his or her will or judgment to employ someone who they would rather not employ because, in some sense, that person is a member of the family. That is the real issue. Surely we can address that concern if we ensure that the choice for a disabled person is an informed one and that it is only possible with the consent of the local authority; in other words, the local authority must be satisfied that it is sensible and reasonable for a disabled person to employ, say, the partner of a stepson who lives across the city. Indeed, it is possible that such a person has only recently become the partner after starting off by being the nurse. However, at present, he or she would immediately be disqualified in such a situation.
As it stands, we cannot make the provision work. The best way of overcoming our difficulty would be for the Minister to give the House an assurance tonight—or, perhaps, return to the matter on Third Reading—that the discretion of the local authority, which the Minister said is in place, for difficult circumstances such as AIDS, ethnic minorities and, indeed, in rural areas, will he enhanced so that to employ any relative within the paragraph 24 definition the consent of the local authority must be sought and obtained. The discretion of the local authority should not be unduly fettered.
That may be the way for us to square the circle. The local authority must be satisfied that the disabled person is not being unreasonably pressured. If it was necessary for the local authority in such a case to be satisfied that it was reasonable to employ such a person, that would meet all of our objections. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some encouragement in that respect, so that we may be able to revisit the matter on Third Reading.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, we shall certainly have another look at the matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to authorities concerning the inclusion of a value added tax element in the calculation of a direct payment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 8, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is also included in this group. The purpose of the first amendment is to allow local authorities to meet the costs of value added tax if incurred in the purchase of care. The consultation
446
document on direct payments issued shortly before the Committee stage—indeed, very shortly before—indicates that the Government do not aim to set a floor or ceiling on the amount of cash payment, but that they expect local authorities to make payments only where payments are at least as cost-effective as equivalent services. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State could issue guidance to local authorities concerning VAT, where such tax may be incurred. This is likely to be in a minority of cases, but without any element to cover VAT disabled people may face financial hardship or may have to reduce the number of hours of personal assistance that they receive.
After the Committee stage, my noble friend the Minister wrote a letter on VAT to our mutual noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening. She was kind enough to send me a copy of that most helpful letter, which I appreciate. However, the letter did not cover all the circumstances. Currently, no VAT is payable on services provided, first, by agencies that are below the VAT threshold of £47,000 a year; secondly, by charities that provide care on a not-for-profit basis; and, thirdly, by agencies employing professional services of medically qualified staff, including unqualified staff under the supervision of qualified staff. However, the distinction between medical and social care is often hard to draw: for example, when is giving someone a bath considered to be social care or as being medically necessary?
So far as concerns direct payments, people who employ their own personal assistant, or who employ professional nursing staff, or agencies operating below the VAT threshold, would not be liable for VAT. But a problem may arise for the minority who may use the services of a home care agency which charges VAT on the services that it provides. VAT can only be recovered by people who are registered for such purposes, which includes local authorities when they are fulfilling a statutory obligation but not individuals.
Since the last stage of the Bill, I undertook some research through one of the care agencies in South Wales which is run by the John Groom Association for the Disabled, for whom I work. I am advised that 75 per cent. of the agencies in that area providing domiciliary care are liable to VAT as they are not medically qualified agencies. In the meantime, I have been talking to the United Kingdom Homecare Association which, although it has no firm figures, estimates that some 40 per cent. of agencies providing home care throughout the nation are liable to charge VAT.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance to local authorities about how VAT is handled. My concern is that disabled people who may choose to have some or all of their hours of personal assistance covered by agencies which are liable to that tax, are not unduly penalised for doing so. That is not likely to happen in the vast majority of cases as all the evidence so far indicates that the proportion of hours covered by such agencies is likely to be small. Indeed, the attraction of direct payments schemes for many disabled people is the opportunity to have choice

447
and control through directly employing a personal assistant, rather than simply transferring from a local authority service to a private agency service.
Experience from the people who have received cash payments from the Independent Living Fund indicates that those who have used agencies have done so on a limited basis. As I understand it, only 44 per cent. of users in south-east London were using, or have used, agencies. However, as those agencies tended to be more expensive, users also tended to top up their ILF payments. The ILF has confirmed that currently payments from the fund include an element of VAT if the recipient indicates that that will be payable when he receives an offer.
In Committee my noble friend the Minister stated that, although VAT is not due on direct payments made by local authorities, some individuals receiving payments may have to pay VAT if receiving services from agencies which charge VAT; so I know that my noble friend is aware of the situation. However, service users will not incur VAT and if the intention, therefore, is to ensure that service users and payment recipients are dealt with in a similar fashion, people who use agencies and incur VAT as a result should not be disadvantaged in comparison with a service user. Without an element for VAT, some people using direct payments could face hardship. That is the situation that I should like to see addressed through guidance.
The purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to ensure that payments include not only elements for VAT but also for national insurance contributions, tax, advertising and all the other costs of employing an individual. The Independent Living Fund or social services indirect payments schemes have never had the same financial commitment enjoyed by equivalent indirect payment. There is no logic to that, other than that disabled people have accepted much lower payments when the schemes originated because they were only too willing to break free from direct services.
By and large, one encounters similar overheads in managing one's own care to that experienced by a larger organisation in establishing similar provision. If one is running a small business and hiring and maintaining staff, costs such as sickness and holiday pay, insurance, recruitment costs, accountant and possible payroll support and employers' National Insurance contributions must all be taken into account in addition to the hourly rate. In most cases, the hourly rate and a small amount of holiday or sick pay is all that is presently offered by the user—and, indeed, to the user—by the payer.
I understand that the Government are likely, through my noble friend the Minister, to tell me that it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to make such decisions. In Committee, my noble friend said that she believed that it should be left to local authorities to decide what the level of direct payments should be. However, when replying to my amendments I wonder whether my noble friend can let us know whether she is prepared to refer the matter to the Technical Advisory Group so that those who arc looking into the technical aspects of applying the Bill can take a proper look at the problem. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is in my name. I shall seek not to repeat too much of what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said with regard to VAT as the amendment is addressed to the same issue although it goes rather further. As the noble Lord has explained, not all care agencies are able to avoid charging VAT, if I can put it that way round. This amendment seeks to tackle the problem of those who wish to purchase services from an agency. That, of course, will not comprise all the clients to whom this Bill is addressed, nor all the agencies. Therefore, to that extent, it is a relatively confined problem. I have sought to suggest a way in which the advantages of local authorities with regard to VAT are retained without putting local authorities and clients back into the position from which we are seeking to move them. The financial memorandum to the Bill states that the provisions of the Bill will be implemented within existing resources. That is not quite the same as saying that it will be cost neutral, because it raises the spectre that it might be an income-generating provision for the Government, in that VAT will have to be charged and paid—and will therefore accrue to the Exchequer—where it is not at present. I hope that the Minister can reassure noble Lords that generating income is the last thing that is in the Government's mind with regard to the area we are discussing.
I suggest, through this amendment, that a client may use a local authority as his or her agent to purchase the care and in that way avoid VAT. I use the word "avoid" and not "evade". That may not be a technically sound suggestion. If it is not, I hope that the Government will recognise the problem and will be able to suggest another mechanism to resolve it. I am concerned that, if the VAT element—an extra 17.5 per cent.—has to be borne by the user, it will be an unnecessary and inappropriate constraint in the choice of service. I appreciate that, if it is borne by the local authority, in a sense that would mean moving funds around between tiers of government. However, I shall not discuss at this stage whether this VAT element will be recognised in SSA and grant. Perhaps that is too detailed a point to discuss now. However, it would be sad if what is really a peripheral matter affects—perhaps fundamentally—the choice of service.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, two years ago I was involved in securing care from an agency for a relation. Funds had to be found and VAT had to be paid. If the amendment were accepted, it would mean that people who received direct payments would be better off than those who had to find the funds for themselves. Am I right or have I got that rather muddled?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, we have a problem, in that the microphone has become severely disabled; in fact, it has broken its neck. However, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on his research. For severely disabled people, employing carers can be complicated because it may involve a rota system comprising several carers. Insurance, holiday pay, maternity leave and other such matters have to he taken into account. Help may need to be provided in resolving

449
those matters. Is it possible for people to receive such help even if they receive direct payments from the local authority, because these matters can be complicated? Many severely disabled people are living on their own without family support.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, as I have added my name to Amendment No. 9. He gave a clear and comprehensive explanation. I steered clear, nervously, of adding my name to a provision which concerned VAT matters, but nevertheless I support this whole group of amendments as they are important.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I do not know whether my next point has already been discussed at an earlier stage, but I should say that a body can amass a fairly large turnover before it has to register for VAT. I should have thought that such a provision would encourage those using carers to use people who had small businesses or who were setting up in business. The provision may be a good one in that sense.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand your Lordships' anxiety which lies behind these amendments. The level of a direct payment must be sufficient to enable the recipient to buy the services the payments are intended to cover. It must also enable someone who gets a direct payment to purchase the services legally. By that I mean that a local authority cannot set a payment at such a low level that the only way someone could purchase the relevant services would be to break the law, by not, for example, complying with legal responsibilities to pay tax. If a local authority deliberately offers an amount in direct payments which would not enable the recipient to buy adequate services, taking into account any financial contribution he may be required to make, that is effectively the same as the local authority not offering direct payments at all. It would not be a proper exercise of local authorities' powers and it could be challenged.
The Bill leaves it to local authorities to decide on the level of a direct payment. To do this, the local authority will have to reach a view on how much it will cost the individual to buy the relevant service. The authority's assessment of costs will have to take account of the legal responsibilities involved. I can give a commitment to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that the Section 7 guidance that we shall issue will say that the direct payment should—taking into account any financial contribution that the authority is asking the individual to make towards the cost of his care—be sufficient for the individual to purchase the relevant service, and should take account of the fact that there may be legal responsibilities, such as paying VAT or national insurance, in doing so. However, local authorities also have a duty to obtain value for money, so the payments will not automatically cover specific costs where there is a more cost-effective way of securing the service. Local authorities cannot be required to fund the cost of a person's preferred method of purchasing a service if, in fact, a service of adequate quality can be purchased more cheaply in another way.
450
So, for example, the cost of the services may include a value added tax element, but it may not need to if the person can secure adequate services from a provider who is not required to charge VAT. It will be for the local authority to decide on an appropriate level of direct payments. Clearly the payment of VAT is something that individuals will wish to consider when deciding what arrangements they will make using their direct payments, just as they will take into account other factors which cause variations in cost and quality of service from different providers.
No amendment is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to issue guidance, as Amendment No.7 aims to do. Clause 3(3) already gives him the power to issue guidance by adding direct payments to the list of social services functions in Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Sections 7 and 7A of that Act authorise the Secretary of State to issue guidance and directions in relation to local authorities' exercise of their social services functions. Amendment No. 7 is therefore not required.
Amendment No. 9 raises the question of what being a "good" employer means. People have different views and different expectations about what a good employer is. It is not clear what the amendment means in this respect and it would therefore be difficult to implement, or enforce. It is a rather unclear and open-ended commitment. It could result in local authorities being required to set the direct payment at a higher level than they thought appropriate. That would interfere with their ability to use their resources efficiently and to help all the people for whom they are arranging services.
I now turn to Amendment No. 8. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in that she wishes to see that people who receive direct payments are not disadvantaged with regard to paying VAT. I have already explained that, where people use their direct payments to purchase services upon which VAT is charged, they will not be able to recover the VAT. There is a special provision which enables local authorities to recover the VAT in relation to their non-business activities but there are strict limitations imposed by EC law on the bodies to which this provision can be applied. These limitations preclude members of the public, so VAT cannot be refunded to individuals.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to enable local authorities to recover the VAT which people who receive direct payments incur. There are two possible scenarios but neither appears to achieve what the noble Baroness intends. In the first a local authority pays an agency to provide a service to an individual. In that case, the local authority will be able to recover any VAT, but then it will not have made a direct payment. The Bill already allows for the possibility that people may continue to receive services arranged by the local authority or a combination of direct payments and services. If the local authority does not pay the money to the individual but pays it directly to the care agency, that is effectively what has happened. The individual does not receive or spend any direct payments.

451
In the second scenario, the local authority does make direct payments to the individual. The individual receives the payments and decides to purchase services from an agency which is required to charge VAT. Under Amendment No. 8 the individual may ask the local authority to act as agent and purchase the services on his behalf from the care agency. The individual passes the money hack to the local authority, which passes it on to the care agency. For VAT purposes, the supply would still be considered to have been made by the care agency to the individual, not to the local authority. The local authority is acting only as an intermediary. Even though the local authority may have paid the agency, it cannot recover the VAT.
I have already said that we intend to use Section 7 guidance to say that direct payments should be sufficient—together with any financial contribution from the individual—for people to purchase the relevant service taking account of the fact that there may be legal responsibilities such as paying VAT. But local authorities also have a responsibility to obtain value for money, so the payments will not automatically cover specific costs where there is a more cost-effective way of buying the service. Individuals cannot recover the VAT they may have to pay. That is not something we can change. The payment of VAT is something that individuals will wish to consider when deciding what arrangements they will make using their direct payments, just as they will take into account other factors which cause variations in cost and quality of service from different providers. A difficulty arises if we seek to advantage purely for VAT purposes those receiving direct payments but not those who pay for their own care. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, we believe that that would be a very unfair arrangement.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked whether we would refer the question of paying VAT to the technical advisory group. The general issue of matters which will affect the level of direct payments has already been considered by the technical advisory group, but I have mentioned what we intend to say in guidance. I hope it will be reassuring if I say that the technical advisory group will be consulted on that guidance and we will be undertaking a wider consultation generally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether I could give an assurance that generating income is not in the Government's mind. I can give that very firm assurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether someone could obtain help from the local authority on VAT issues. Local authorities may offer advice but probably the best way to obtain guidance is through Customs and Excise. The noble Baroness asked whether services will be provided by local authorities. The purpose of direct payments is that they are instead of services which are provided. It is possible for a recipient to receive both direct payments and services together, but clearly one would not have a home help and then receive direct payment to pay for a home help. I hope that I have made that matter clear. The noble Baroness looks mightily puzzled and perhaps we can discuss it afterwards.
452
We believe that Amendment No. 8 is ingenious but we do not believe that it achieves its desired effect. If the local authority purchases the services, then VAT may be recovered but no direct payment is made. If the local authority purchases the services acting as the individual's agent, then the supply is to the individual and the local authority may not recover the VAT. We believe that the amendments should not be supported.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a long and comprehensive reply. I was encouraged when she indicated that all proper taxes and so forth must be included in the grant. However, I was a little disappointed when she gave me the impression that people in receipt of grants might lose some of their independence by not being allowed to use the care agency that they particularly want in case there is a charge for value added tax.
I am grateful that some of these matters will be considered by the technical advisory group and by other bodies when my noble friend and those in her department are taking advice. I wish to read the reply because it was long and complicated and I shall reserve my right to come back to the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide that each local authority shall ensure that recipients of payments under subsection (1) above have access to personal assistance support services to help with the management of direct payments.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 relate to advice and support for those who will be purchasing their care requirements for the first time. It takes no great leap of imagination to realise that many of the issues will be difficult and complicated for people to deal with, in particular those who have not previously purchased their own community care requirements. The vast majority of us when confronted by a new form, shiver when we first see it and wonder what it means. I wonder how many noble Lords are totally familiar with legalese and how often they see it. It is frightening to many of us.
Both amendments provide for ways in which support can be given. Amendment No. 10 is similar to an amendment tabled in Committee and is put forward in hope and expectation. It provides that guidance shall be given. However, if the Government have not changed their decision about such support being on the face of the Bill, we ask them to consider Amendment No. 13. That provides that the Government will be able to give support and is tabled in response to a reply given by the Minister in Committee. She stated:
"We intend to issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that they are aware of the importance of support. However, we feel that to go beyond that and give local authorities a legal duty to provide advice and assistance would be onerous and probably inappropriate".—[Official Report, 15/1/96; cols. 389.]
Amendment No. 13 merely enables the Government to give guidance and is therefore in line with the Government's own thinking. Without such support

453
many people who are supposed to benefit from direct payments will not be able to do so simply because they will be unable to understand the system. They will be frightened off, or, even worse, some people will not be able to follow through and give the correct help to the employees and may have legal action taken against them.
There is a practical problem as regards understanding and implementing the regulations. Surely some direct form of guidance would be appropriate and I invite the Government to accept Amendment No. 13 if they cannot accept Amendment No. 10. Such advice is vital to the operation of the scheme, which we all hope will work. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendments. I should prefer a regulatory power. However, a Section 7 guidance might meet the point, as the noble Lord said.
The issue is simple. Many disabled people who have only received services from a local authority would prefer to receive cash payments to buy those services but are apprehensive about being an employer. People who have been employers are familiar with the situation. However, as a mother in full time work, with two young children, employing a mother's help, I found it difficult to cope with national insurance, tax and all the other requirements of an employer. Many disabled people will be similarly nervous, especially as they may need to employ not one mother's help but two or even three carers, some of whom may be on the PAYE system or self-employed, as well as turning to the back-up support of an agency.
It is easy to make mistakes. The ILF has experience of people who have done so and who have run up arrears of national insurance, tax or the like. But whereas someone like myself in full-time work was able to throw money at the problem (if I may use that expression) and sort it out with the tax and national insurance offices, a disabled person might not have the finances to sort out the financial problem retrospectively.
Most local authorities recognise that when skilled people find themselves unemployed and, perhaps with a redundancy payment in hand, consider moving into self-employment or setting up a small business—they may wish to start a taxi service, a sandwich delivery service or engage in desktop publishing, all small businesses which I was involved in establishing in local authority days—the biggest single obstacle is the ability to cope with the paperwork as an employer. That is what deters most people when employing someone else. They need to be able to cope. Most local authorities, including my own, have enterprise agency trusts precisely to give the wrap-around support and guidance to help small businesses avoid being broken by bureaucracy in the first two years of trying to fly.
What is available in most authorities for a fit and able person starting up a small business employing an individual should also be available to a disabled and unfit individual employing someone. An employer who employs an individual performs in the same way as a small business. It makes good sense. The amendment
454
ensures that direct payments are properly spent and there is no risk of misuse—I do not say abuse—of public moneys. It ensures that the disabled person acts as a good employer. He does not rely on cheap labour and casual arrangements which leave the employee without adequate holidays, sick pay or the like. The amendment avoids the risk of financial problems. With the knowledge that there is a support package in place, many more disabled people will take the risk of moving from services to cash payments.
We want the Bill to succeed. We know that the Minister wants the Bill to succeed. We want local authorities to take on this provision with goodwill. But we also want disabled people to have the courage to manage their own affairs. They will do so with the support package. They will not do so if there is no support package. If the Minister cannot provide by regulation, will she please use her best endeavours to ensure that the provision is in place by guidance.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the measure to extend cash grants to people who have community care and wish to manage their own care will, I fear, have limited success unless support services are also available. This is, I understand, the view of organisations such as the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People and the Disablement Income Group, both of which have considerable experience. They argue that many more people could become confident and competent employers of their own personal care assistance if practical advice, training and other support were provided. Support for people who are managing their own personal assistance arrangements goes beyond the provision of leaflets about the legal requirements for tax and national insurance. Information on a range of issues has to be up to date and available to each individual as he embarks upon independent living.
It is important that resources are made available for the production of written material for direct payment users and that organisations with a track record of producing guidance are involved in its production. A handbook for direct payment users would be a step in the right direction. I hope that the Government will make resources available.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendments. Last week I visited a lady in Alloa. She has cerebral palsy and receives direct payments. She has achieved her own specially modified home through her local housing association after many years of having to live in residential care. The lady is determined to live independently with 24-hour care, and, to many people's surprise, she is successful. She cannot tackle wages or other employment issues. Those are handled for her by the Whins Independent Living Scheme set up by Central Region social work department. However, she can select her own assistance and prepare on the computer the 24-hour rotas. She lends her staff in emergencies to other members of the scheme. Quite simply, the amendment would enable that situation to occur in England and Wales.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, both amendments deal with the support which will be provided to people

455
who receive direct payments. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that forms can be very intimidating. As the noble Baroness said, employing others is not an easy option. Amendment No. 13 also deals with the choice available to people who receive direct payments. On the question of choice, we have already said that we hope local authorities will allow people who receive direct payments as much freedom as possible in how they use them. But we have also said that ultimately the authority must be satisfied that the money is appropriately spent.
Both amendments seek to ensure that local authorities provide advice and support to those people who receive direct payments. It is not necessary to amend the Bill to enable local authorities to do that. The Government agree that experience to date has shown that direct payment schemes work better where there is support, and we intend to encourage local authorities to do so. We see this as a matter of good practice.
We shall be issuing practice guidance on direct payments in addition to Section 7 policy guidance. Our practice guidance will cover the issue of support to direct payments recipients and will stress its importance. We shall be discussing the content of both sets of guidance with the direct payments technical advisory group and we shall also consult more widely on both sets of guidance before they are issued. We have already said that we intend to tell local authorities that they should inform people to whom they are offering direct payments that they may have responsibilities as employers before the individual decides to accept direct payments.
Amendment No. 13 talks about safeguarding the terms and conditions of people who are employed by those who receive direct payments. People who use their direct payments to employ staff will have the same legal liabilities as every other employer. That means that those who are employed will have the same safeguards as other employees. I do not think that it is either necessary or desirable to attempt to use the legislation to do something different for this particular group of employees than for the workforce generally. Nor do I think it right that the Secretary of State should tell people who receive direct payments what terms and conditions of employment they should use.
Amendment No. 13 places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidelines on the issues of choice and employment terms. We have already said that we intend to issue guidance and that we shall consult on that guidance in draft. But we do not think it right to use the Bill to limit the Secretary of State's discretion over what that guidance covers or contains.
The Government are also considering producing a guide to managing direct payments for the people who receive them. We intend to discuss the matter with the technical advisory group to see if it thinks that that would be useful and, if so, what it might contain. If we do produce such a guide I am sure that it would cover the issue of employing staff, although I must stress that it would not be an exhaustive, authoritative guide on employment liabilities. That would not be appropriate. Authoritative information and advice are already
456
available from the appropriate sources such as the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency. It would not make sense to attempt to duplicate. In addition to the guidance we shall issue, we intend to produce training materials to help local authorities train their staff to implement direct payments. We have not yet decided what exactly to produce, as again we intend to discuss the matter with the technical advisory group.
The Government intend to encourage local authorities to provide support or arrange for it to be provided by some other agency such as perhaps a voluntary organisation of disabled people. We do not, however, think it right to go beyond that and require local authorities to provide support, as Amendment No. 10 proposes. We think that it should be left to local authorities to decide on the level and type of support they provide, taking into account local needs, circumstances and priorities. Local authorities are best placed to decide what is appropriate, just as, for community care generally, local authorities decide on the level and nature of services to arrange. It is clear that direct payments will only work with the commitment of local authorities to the policy. I am sure that authorities who want to make direct payments a success will want to help and support direct payments recipients.
Lord Addington: My Lords, that is an answer I have become used to hearing. "Yes, we agree with you in principle, but not here", is the sub-text. I would rather have the provision on the face of the Bill but it is not worth dividing the House now, although I may change my mind. The Minister's answer should be studied. There is one remaining stage of the Bill and considering the hour and the number of Divisions that have already taken place, it is appropriate that the matter should be taken away and considered. However, I give no guarantee that I shall not bring it back on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, leave out lines I to 4 and insert—
("(5) If the authority by whom a payment under subsection (1) above is made are not satisfied, in relation to the whole or any part of the payment—

(a) that it has been used to secure the provision of the service to which it relates, or

(b) that the condition imposed by subsection (3) above, or any condition properly imposed by them, has been met in relation to its use,

they may require the payment or, as the case may be, the part of the payment to be repaid.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 16. In Committee I gave a commitment to bring forward an amendment to give effect to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's recommendation. The scrutiny committee wanted the provision for local authorities to require direct payments to be repaid written on the face of the Bill instead of taking a regulatory power. Amendment No. 11 fulfils that commitment and Amendment No. 16 is a similar amendment to the Scottish provisions.
The amendments give local authorities the power to recover mis-spent funds; there is no duty placed on them to do so. As I explained in Committee, the Government do not believe that local authorities should have a duty to recover money which is mis-spent. To impose such a duty could force authorities to pursue trivial sums which could well be less than the cost of recovery. Giving them a power rather than a duty also gives authorities discretion to take into account hardship considerations when deciding whether to seek repayment. Local authorities' existing duties to ensure that they manage their resources with due regard for propriety and value for money are sufficient to ensure that they will seek recovery of funds in appropriate cases.
The amendments provide that local authorities may require all or part of a direct payment to be repaid where they are not satisfied that it has been used for the purpose for which it was intended or that the conditions properly imposed on its use have been met. A local authority will only make direct payments on the basis of someone's assessed needs, and it must be able to recover money which is not used to secure services to meet those needs. We intend to encourage local authorities to use their discretion to allow individuals as much flexibility as possible over how they use their direct payments but ultimately the authority must be satisfied that the money is appropriately spent. Local authorities have a duty to ensure that public funds are not mis-spent and so the final judgment on what is appropriate must remain with local authorities. They must be satisfied that the money is spent for the purpose for which it was intended.
The amendments also provide for direct payments to be recovered where the conditions on their use have not been met. This part of the subsection is needed to recover funds if payments are used to employ someone who is excluded by regulations under Clause 1(3) or the related Section 7 guidance we propose.
The amendments place the onus of proving that direct payments have been spent properly with the recipient rather than requiring the local authority to satisfy itself that the money has been mis-spent. That will ensure that local authorities can lay down the monitoring arrangements with which they expect people who receive direct payments to comply. Our guidance will emphasise the importance of local authorities making clear to people—before they start to receive direct payments—what the money may or may not be spent on, and what information on expenditure the authority will require for audit purposes.
The wording of the amendments ensures that local authorities can recover only that part of a direct payment which they are not satisfied has been spent properly to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with whatever circumstances arise. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining the reasons for the amendment. I moved amendments in Committee to enable discussion to take place on two suggestions
458
by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The Government then announced that they intended to adopt one of the options which was to include a general provision to give a power to local authorities and to do so in the Bill in the primary legislation. These amendments carry out that proposal out and I welcome them. The scrutiny committee had suggested that if that did not happen, then the regulations under subsection (5) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the first instance. That is not now necessary. However, I note that in Amendment No. 19 the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, proposes that all regulations under the Bill should be subject to affirmative resolution in the first instance. I shall keep my comments on that until we reach the amendment.
I welcome Amendment No. 16, the Scottish equivalent of the one being discussed. As a former member of the scrutiny committee—a new committee which is only three years old—I am glad to witness yet another case in which the Government have moved to adopt one of the committee's suggestions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with all the problems of employing people which we have been discussing, can the Minister say what happens if someone who receives direct payments gets into debt?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support for the amendments. As regards the noble Baroness's question, the social services department would clearly wish to try to help the individual concerned if it felt that it was not a wilful debt but was incurred through lack of knowledge or something similar. Ultimately the social services department could decide that that person was unable to manage direct payments. In that case it would want to discuss the matter with the person concerned and possibly provide services instead of direct payments. However, it would be for the local authority to keep an eye on such situations and use its discretion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
REGULATION OF INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENT CARERS
(". After consulting all persons who appear to him to be interested, the Secretary of State shall establish a body for the regulation of individual providers of home care to recipients of payments under section 1(1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to establish a regulatory body to ensure that all providers of direct payments to recipients work to a satisfactory and uniform standard of conduct and practice. In that way, recipients of direct payments, and the local authorities responsible for those payments, would be assured of a high standard of care.
The regulatory body would be along the lines of a general social work council. The membership of such a body would be an important factor. It would be fair to all concerned that it should have representatives from among users, local authorities, professionals, voluntary and statutory bodies and other interested parties. It would regulate powers of competence, which would effectively mean the power to issue a licence to practise that in the event of incompetence could be withdrawn.
In 1970, Professor Parker of Bristol University carried out a study that made a compelling case for the setting up of a general social services council. At that time local authorities were entirely responsible for the work of their department. It was felt that it would be duplicating their responsibilities.
Times have changed. Local government increasingly assumes the role of enabler of services. We now have a purchaser-provider system involving the public, the private sector and the voluntary sector. Thus, it is necessary to ensure a uniform service of high quality, both within the local authority and throughout the country. The setting up of a general social work council would ensure that the recommendations made in this Bill would be carried out effectively; and, as I said earlier, would ensure uniform standards of conduct and practice, not only within the local authority but throughout the country. The medical and nursing professions, with whom social services work closely, have such a council. The time has come to set up a general social work council to monitor and help in the implementation of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, my Amendment No. 15 is grouped with this one. Although it takes a slightly different approach, the idea is the same. Those who provide care that can be purchased directly should be regulated in some way. Bad care, cowboy operators, or call them what you will, are apparent in most walks of life. It would be tragic beyond belief if people who do not know what they are doing enter this service and, for instance, advertise at cheaper rates. The capacity for a series of very unpleasant little tragedies is immense. Surely, some form of regulation should be in place. It does not matter which of these amendments—the one aimed at services or that aimed at individuals—is accepted. There must he some form of regulation. If the Minister can prove that there is already some form of legal framework to provide that, all well and good. But there must be protection. Without it, we tread extremely dangerous ground. Without regulation, we almost guarantee that at some point there will be a total abuse of this new system.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, to back up the remarks of my noble friend I give an example from Scotland. On Friday I was told of an appalling case history. Prior to the setting up of the local independent living scheme, a student with brittle bones had a directly employed carer who liked to receive a loan whenever the direct payment arrived. The carer would make the threatening remark, "You know, I could drop you". Not surprisingly, the student lived in terror of his carer. Subsequently, and fortunately, the student joined his local independent living scheme. After interview, the
460
scheme manager was able to tackle the dismissal of that wholly inappropriate carer. The student's life improved dramatically with his next carer.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I direct my remarks mainly to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, dealing with the regulation of individual carers rather than agencies, as in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I stress that this does not relate to her general point, but to individual carers in the context of this Bill. I have enormous respect for the noble Baroness. As she knows very well, normally I happily follow her through any Lobby. However, this amendment worries me, as a disabled person who is at the moment lucky enough not to need personal assistance. It also causes concern to the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People (BCODP), many of whose members were in the forefront of the independent living movement which campaigned for disabled people to employ and train their own personal assistants and direct their care according to their own particular needs and ways.
BCODP feels that to impose upon disabled people carers who are professionally trained to do the job by people other than disabled people themselves would serve only to perpetuate the professionalism and administration of disabled people's lives. That is, after all, the very thing that this Bill tries to get away from.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, a few questions as to how her amendment might affect a disabled employer's freedom and independence. For instance, how would a disabled person be certain that he or she would be able to employ the personal assistants of his or her choice? Those persons may not be on the register. Would the local authority then restrict employment only to those on the register? Many users recruit from other European countries. They would lose a potential source of labour if new regulations meant that such recruits had to be accredited before starting work. Would they be safeguarded? Would local authorities set dual standards for the pay and conditions of registered and non-registered personal assistants? How would a national register respond to local and cultural differences? How would the standard for going on the register be decided? There are currently no qualifications or training for personal assistants; so what criteria are being suggested? Whose interests do they serve? Did the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, consult disabled people and their organisations on this amendment? Did she specifically consult the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, which has great expertise in this area?
I appreciate that the noble Baroness's amendment states that the Secretary of State should consult all interested parties before establishing a regulatory body, but it also states that, after consultation, it shall then he set up.
I very much hope that, if such organisations as BCODP were not consulted, the noble Baroness might feel able to withdraw the amendment—I do not know

461
whether she put it forward at this stage only for discussion. I hope that she will not press it and will be willing to consult disabled people's organisations. BCODP says that it is very willing to consult. It would be very regrettable if a move designed to protect instead ended up forcing people back into dependent relationships.
I should like to give two brief quotes from Cashing in on Independence, written by Zarb and Nadash. They are quotes from people who use direct payments. The first is:
"Some people impose their own ideas and I've still got mine, even if I haven't got my legs".
The other is:
"Being able to chose the right person—personality, attitude to disability, how they fit in with the family. I'm able to retain my self respect".
Those are examples of what it is all about. I hope that the noble Baroness will think very carefully and perhaps consult.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the general idea behind both these amendments is admirable. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which aims to ensure proper standards with care agencies, is very much easier to implement than is that of my noble friend. With a care agency, as with medically qualified agencies such as nursing agencies, at the moment one can insist that the senior person in the agency has obtained certain qualifications and that the individuals supplied by the agency are working under the proper supervision of qualified people in the agency.
However, with the individual carer who is recruited on an individual basis, the standards and work required are so varied that adequate qualifications will be extremely difficult to produce. A carer may perform some very complicated tasks providing care for six, seven or eight hours a day for a very severely disabled person. On the other hand, a carer may go for half an hour or an hour in the morning to get someone out of bed, washed and dressed and possibly go in at other times just to give a bath. A great deal of professional knowledge is not required, only a certain amount of genuine common sense.
I am delighted that both the amendments have been brought forward. It is absolutely essential that we make certain that the carers who will be produced once the Bill is implemented—I am sure that agencies will spring up throughout the United Kingdom and more disabled people will seek individual carers—have the right standards.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is quite easy to implement because it deals with qualifications which managers and staff may have. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull is much more difficult for the individual. I should like to hear her reply to the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), although I doubt whether she had time to take down all the questions and may have to deal with them at Third Reading—she may write shorthand, whereas I do not, so she has the advantage of me.
462
I support the principles behind both the amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall be brief. Most of my points have already been made. We support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for the regulation of agencies. It seems to me absolutely right that where people operate a commercial service in a sensitive area of care, they should be registered and appropriate qualifications checked.
Like other noble Lords who spoke, I too have some unease about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Nobody in this House can match her experience in the fields of health and social service. She is absolutely right to remind us that when we move to direct payments there is a risk of abuse. Clearly her amendment aims to offset that risk by seeking to professionalise the role of carer.
The problem is that professionalising the carer generates other problems in turn and may, but not necessarily will, displace the disabled person from the centre of the care network and again make him dependent on it. By virtue of their training, professionals bring assumptions to bear—that is what their training is about—which may not always be appropriate in the eyes of the individual. If they seek to retain their authority as employer, it can make things difficult.
Perhaps I may suggest a more appropriate route. The noble Baroness was right to remind us that there is a risk of abuse in this area and we should safeguard against it. I suggest that the right route is less through seeking a general council or regulation through that device than by revisiting the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a few moments ago, which seeks to ensure that local authorities have in place support and advice packages for disabled people which will strengthen them in their abilities and competences when it comes to selection and recruitment of staff. That seems to be the right way to work with the grain of what disabled people want rather than seek to meet the fears that the noble Baroness addressed along routes that they clearly do not want.
In those circumstances and given the strength of experience of the noble Baroness, I wonder whether the Minister may, on reflection, be able to move even further down the road of Amendment No. 10 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, than she was previously minded to do.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to add a few words. One needs flexibility and freedom for the individual but also one needs protection. The example given by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was a real one. Recently there have been some unpleasant cases of abuse in homes for handicapped people in Yorkshire. Disabled people could be very seriously abused even more so in their own homes where there are no other people around. Also there is now the growing problem of alcohol and drug abuse. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look closely at some acceptable way of protection for the individual.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very much aware of the commitment and support of my noble

463
friend Lady Faithfull for a social work council and regulation generally. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl previously expressed their concern with regard to regulation in this area. We share that concern. We are now undertaking a major review of the way in which social services are regulated and inspected. Part of the remit of that review is to consider whether non-residential services should be subject to regulation. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, this is a very difficult area. I do not envy the task of the review team. But we consider that it would be jumping the gun to introduce regulation of the kind of independent provision about which we have been talking tonight in the context of direct payments while the whole subject is being reviewed.
The review was launched by the publication of the consultation document Moving Forward in September 1995, fulfilling our earlier promise to consider the need for statutory regulation of day and domiciliary care services. We appointed an independent assessor, Tom Burgner, to lead the consultation process. His job is to receive and assess written responses to Moving Forward and to hold direct discussions with relevant bodies. We believe that Tom Burgner's background as a successful public servant, most recently as Secretary of the Chancellors and Vice-Principals of the Universities, has equipped him well to distil the outcome of a major public consultation exercise and to make recommendations balancing all interests.
Responses to the consultation document have to be submitted to Tom Burgner by the end of this month. He will then make his report to Ministers in the summer. We expect the report to be published. How the issues are handled after that will, of course, depend on the recommendations and their legislative implications. We do not know what the outcome of the review will be and whether it will recommend that we regulate non-residential care. But once we know the outcome of the review we shall consider its implications for direct payments.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and also thank all those who have spoken. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), made nine points. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not go through all of them. First, if such a council were to be set up, it would include the voluntary organisations, as I said, and there would be co-operation between the two. Also, there must be co-operation between the local authorities and the voluntary organisations, to which she referred.
I was asked to move the amendment by the Directors of Social Services, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils. It is not a question of one taking over from the other. It would be co-operation between the two. It is very important that the statutory and voluntary bodies work closely together.
I did not envisage that the amendment would deal with details. Those will be for the local authority and the voluntary organisations concerned. It concerns much more the policies and structures. However, I realise that
464
we have not consulted with the bodies and we shall do so before the next stage. I shall also answer the nine points made by the noble Baroness. It is absolutely essential that there are joint policies between voluntary organisations and the local authorities.
Obviously, I do not intend to press the amendment. I should be grateful if I could discuss it further with the Minister and bring it up at the next stage of the Bill. I withdraw it for today.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Direct payments]:
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert—
("(5) If the authority by whom a payment under subsection (I) above is made are not satisfied, in relation to the whole or any part of the payment—

(a) that it has been used to secure the provision of the service to which it relates, or

(b) that the condition imposed by subsection (3) above, or any condition properly imposed by them, has been met in relation to its use,

they may require the payment or, as the case may be, the part of the payment to be repaid.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may explain why I seem to be opposing the extension of this good scheme of reasonably sound principle to Scotland. I believe that it is a little too restrictive and I ask the fundamental question: is it necessary in Scotland? I have already given examples which indicate that the scheme is already being practised in Scotland to some extent and that it is legal.
I received two written Answers to parliamentary Questions which were extremely helpful. The first was a response from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, when I asked about local authority powers under Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act. He replied that a local authority may give cash to,
"any person aged at least 18 years who is in need, within the meaning of the Act, and requiring assistance in exceptional circumstances constituting an emergency, and where to do so would be more cost effective".—[Official Report, 25/1/96; col. WA81.]
Clearly two conditions need to be fulfilled before a local authority can give cash, so the latter part of the Answer was extremely helpful.
Similarly, on 7th February the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in response to a further written Question, came up with the helpful reply that:
"Local authorities have powers under Section 10(3) of the 1968 [Social Work (Scotland)) Act to make payments to certain voluntary organisations which may be used to assist individual adults purchase community care services".—[Official Report, 7/2/96; col. WA25.]
I feel quite confident therefore that the schemes which are presently running in Scotland and any others which may come along are working from a legal base and are therefore not in need of further legislation.
I wish to mention three schemes that are already running in Scotland. Both in Strathclyde and Lothian there are centres for integrated living and the Lothian scheme is already helping with direct payments for people with physical handicaps, learning disabilities or mental health problems or who are elderly. The main problems encountered by that scheme relate to arguments with social security and taxation departments.
I have already mentioned in passing the Whins Independent Living Scheme. Perhaps I may give a number of examples of what that scheme does on a broad base. It provides a 24-hour package of assistance for an individual who is tetraplegic and returned to the community from an acute hospital unit following a road accident. It provides 24-hour assistance for an individual who is deaf and blind who moved into the community from long-term hospital care. It provides 24-hour assistance for an individual who suffered a brain injury and recently moved from the family home to his own home in the community. It provides 24-hour care Monday to Friday for a physically disabled person who has a learning disability: there are flexible care hours at the weekend when his elderly mother returns from hospital where she is currently receiving treatment for cancer. The scheme provides constant overnight assistance for a terminally ill person, providing support and respite for the daughter who is the main carer. It provides 24-hour assistance for a physically disabled single parent who has a young daughter, and assistance three days a week for a physically disabled child while attending a family centre. I am certain that noble Lords will agree that that is a broad client group rather wider than that envisaged by the provisions for England and Wales.
The Whins Independent Living Scheme is already providing 3,000 hours of assistance, which represents £500,000. It delivers that help to 100 members and employs 140 assistants. I should point out that the scheme helps members to select their own assistants; it trains the assistants; it offers employer services and will help clients work out rotas; it offers a relief scheme through which members often loan staff to each other in the event of illness and, if necessary, the scheme's headquarters will provide emergency staff. The scheme negotiates with the Department of Health and Social Security in Stirling. The key is that each member has the determination to live independently, and I praise the Central Region social work department for that bright idea.
In Scotland there is anxiety among social work departments and voluntary organisations in relation to the guidance and who will write it for Scotland; there is considerable anxiety also in relation to the age restrictions of 18 to 65 for the physically handicapped. We hope that that regulation will not apply in Scotland. Indeed, perhaps the Minister can tell us who will control
466
the regulations in Scotland. I hope the answer is that it will be the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
To add a little political dimension to the argument, the issue I am raising concerns the classic problem of a split in administrative and legislative devolution. I am certain that it could be more easily dealt with in a Scottish parliament with less confusion—but I suspect that I would think that.
I believe that the Bill would give us duplication of legislation. In the case of many amendments that I have tabled in the past I have been firmly rejected on the grounds of being unnecessarily explicit when the Government believed that a more implicit approach was appropriate. I hope therefore that it can be established that this legislation is not necessary for Scotland and that fewer restrictions will be imposed for Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am glad to follow the introduction by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I say straight away that I have known him for many years, in fact since he was at school, and that he has an immense knowledge of social work in Scotland, having worked for many years in that field himself. We should therefore take note of what he suggests.
When I saw Amendment No. 17 I was not sure whether the noble Earl simply did not want the Bill to apply to Scotland; whether he wanted alternative drafting for Clauses 4 and 5; or whether he wanted a separate Scottish Bill, which was another possibility. Having heard him speak, I recognise that he does not want the Bill to apply to Scotland.
The noble Earl referred, as I have done several times in your Lordships' House in recent years, to the fact that it is not illegal in Scotland to make direct payments in certain circumstances and that that has been practised in Scotland without the need for it to be done indirectly through a third party. However, it is not something which all local authorities have felt able to do.
The noble Earl was able to help the House by showing that the system operates in Scotland but only in certain circumstances. When the proposals came forward for a system of direct payments in this country, I was keen that it should extend to Scotland and that if there was to be fairly complicated legislation, which all of us now realise is the case, it would be a pity if Scotland were to miss an opportunity to address the whole subject of direct payments.
Therefore, while I follow and understand what the noble Earl suggested, I would prefer a discretionary system for all local authorities in Scotland along the lines—it cannot be in the same words as we have different systems in Scotland—that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall not go into all the other details about people moving north and south of the Border and having different systems. Given this opportunity of a United Kingdom Bill—we have separate clauses dealing with the Scottish system and Scottish law—it would be a pity for Scotland to be taken

467
out of the Bill, as suggested by the noble Earl, although I recognise and respect his reasons for putting forward the suggestion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as a Scot—even though I live in England, once a Scot always a Scot—may I ask the Minister for an assurance that the good schemes now working in Scotland will not be restricted by the legislation. Such an assurance might please the mover of the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is always with trepidation that I cross Hadrian's Wall and although I am quite tempted I am not so foolish at this hour of the night to become involved in constitutional issues.
I am advised that the amendments prevent direct payments being made available in Scotland. We would not want to deny people in Scotland access to the new freedom on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Campbell, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, undoubtedly knows, Scottish local authorities have a power under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to make cash payments to individuals. But those cash payments may be made only in exceptional circumstances constituting an emergency; for example, to pay for food, fuel or accommodation. It is a very limited power. Those cash payments may not be used to substitute for mainstream community care provision on a planned and regular basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether payments would be jeopardised by the Bill. My understanding is that they will not. I shall write to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl if that is not the case.
Local authorities also have powers under Section 10(3) of the 1968 Act to make payments to certain voluntary organisations. As part of their own activities, those organisations may themselves make payments to assist individual adults to purchase community care services. Neither of those powers is equivalent to the powers created by the Bill. Clause 4 will enable local authorities in Scotland to pay money directly to individuals on a planned and regular basis to enable those people to secure for themselves the community care services they need. With the amendment, local authorities in Scotland would not have that new power. Accepting the amendment would disadvantage disabled people in Scotland who would be deprived of the opportunity to receive direct payments on the same basis as people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Clause 5 makes a minor technical amendment to ensure that the provisions of Section 13 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 continue to relate to Section 12 of that Act as originally intended. We see no reason to remove it. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will see fit not to press the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I said that I am in favour of this type of activity. There is a good deal of confusion in social work as to how the provisions of Section 12 are to be interpreted. It is confusing not just for me hut for all those trying to provide a service. There is a genuine debate about the
468
remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. I am glad to see that he is in his place. In his Written Answer he referred to people requiring assistance in exceptional circumstances constituting an emergency and where doing so would be more cost effective. I would interpret that as two separate conditions; others have not done so.
I was hoping that the noble Baroness could tell me who would be responsible for issuing the guidance for Scotland. If she can tell me, I would he very appreciative.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not mention it. It is the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it has become easier to withdraw the amendment. I am extremely grateful for that last piece of information. Without more ado, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Consequential amendment]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS
(". In this Act the power to make regulations shall be exercisable by a statutory instrument which—

(a) on the occasion of the first exercise of any such power shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and

(b) thereafter shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment replicates one I moved at the previous stage. It proposes that regulations should in the first instance be the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure and thereafter the negative resolution procedure. In her answer to the amendment in Committee the Minister said that the main drawback was the need to find parliamentary time every time the Government wished to amend. She also said that the amendment would be inconsistent with existing legislation in the community care field where Members have been content to allow the negative resolution procedure. It was quite late when we discussed the amendment on that occasion and I did not pick up that the criticism was the need for parliamentary time. I want to clarify that point and to suggest that we have not yet fulfilled what I think are parliamentary responsibilities because of the order in which we are dealing with different issues. I am suggesting that there should be one occasion when parliamentary time is required unless there is a problem in your Lordships' eyes or in the eyes of Members of another place.
Although parliamentary time would be required if the amendment were agreed to, it would not be excessive parliamentary time. I am sure your Lordships agree that Parliament is the servant of those whom we represent or serve, that Parliament should not he master, and that parliamentary time should not be our master beyond

469
what is reasonable. We are dealing with the Bill at a time when details are out for consultation. A response is not required until 23rd February and the Minister cannot, I imagine, say tonight how long it will take for the Government to react to that consultation. By definition, until it is over it will not be known what the level of response is. I do not know about quantity, but it is clear that in terms of quality there is a very considerable response.
One of the things that has impressed me most since I arrived in your Lordships' House is the level of contribution by members of the public and by interest groups. We ask for their contributions. We regard ourselves as a pluralist society and therefore we should listen to their contributions very carefully and consider them formally. I say that in the context of what I believe to be an increasing blurring of the line between the legislature and the Executive. We are by definition dealing here with legislation. There are aspects of this legislation that should be considered by Parliament. They will come within regulation. I accept that they may be subject to annulment, but is it not right and proper that we set ourselves the goal of devoting parliamentary time to consideration of the specific issues that we believe may he addressed by the consultees? With regard to the client groups, the Minister said that the Government will not consider those groups until after consultation. That alone appears to answer my argument in the affirmative; namely, that it is proper to come back to your Lordships' House with that response and consider it in a formal manner. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will introduce the affirmative resolution procedure in the first instance and then the negative procedure for all of the regulations that will arise under the Bill. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, of which I was a Member until last November, suggested that that concept should be used only in relation to regulations under subsection (5) if a change was not made in primary legislation. That has been done. Today, we have supported an amendment by the Government that carries out the recommendation of the scrutiny committee to include what would have been subsection (5) in primary legislation; that is, this Bill. Therefore, the alternative suggested by the scrutiny committee of the affirmative procedure in the first instance and then the negative procedure for that section is no longer necessary.
The concept of affirmative procedure in the first instance and subsequently negative procedure is a new one. It has been proposed by the scrutiny committee and has already been adopted by the Government on two or three occasions in other Bills. I am attracted by this procedure, as I believe noble Lords will remember from previous debates on other Bills. I understand the concept that the noble Baroness has espoused, but in this Bill the committee did not think that the procedure was necessary for any of the other regulations which would arise. The committee considered that the negative procedure was appropriate for all of them. All of that can be looked up in the first report of that committee in this Session. While I am personally delighted that this idea has commended
470
itself so remarkably, particularly to the noble Baroness, I cannot support its inclusion for all or any of the regulations to be generated in due course under the Bill. That was not considered necessary by the scrutiny committee because those provisions were to be introduced gradually. One of the reasons why the scrutiny committee thought that the negative procedure was appropriate for all of the regulations was that the Government intended to bring in client groups and categories gradually.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand the concern of your Lordships to have the opportunity to express views upon and influence the content of the secondary legislation; but I have given, and will repeat, the assurance that we will take into account the views of this House in making our decisions on the content of regulations. We will also be taking into account the responses to the major consultation exercise that we have initiated on the regulations.
The main drawback to the proposed amendment is that it requires the Government to find parliamentary time while the negative procedure provides for parliamentary scrutiny, if your Lordships feel that that is necessary. Your Lordships will he aware that that is the usual approach for regulations of this kind. To make regulations subject to affirmative resolution in the first instance is highly unusual. Parliamentary time is not always easy to find. It would be undesirable to be constrained to find that time if no further discussion of the point was needed, particularly as it might hamper progress towards the implementation of a very exciting scheme that enjoyed wide support in the country as well as in your Lordships' House.
As my noble friend said, the question of the appropriateness of the Government's proposals on secondary legislation was considered by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We have accepted that committee's recommendation on Clause 1(5). However, it made no recommendation on the rest of the proposed regulatory powers and was content with our proposal that negative resolution regulations should be made. Therefore, I urge your Lordships not to support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I recognise that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee dealt with only one subsection in its comments on the Bill. I have deliberately sought to go further. I confess that I did not expect to achieve entire acceptance of this amendment. However, it is a pity that we have dealt with the Bill in the order in which it has been dealt. False constraints are applied by the parliamentary timetable and the artificial end of the parliamentary year. We are dealing with a Bill where so much depends upon detail. Those affected have been asked for their comments on the detail. We do not have the benefit of it in dealing with the legislation of a stage where no doubt it will get far more detailed scrutiny than in another place. It is a great pity that that is the order in which it has been dealt with, and that is why I feel it is necessary to raise the point. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill
7.58 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Pension supplements]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved the amendment:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert —
("( ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or of any Order in Council made under it, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that no Hong Kong overseas public servant in receipt of a pension shall, if paid his pension in pounds sterling, suffer a loss of more than 20 per cent. in the real value of the amount payable as a result of any adverse fluctuation in the rate of exchange of the Hong Kong dollar against the pound sterling relative to the exchange values prevalent on the date of retirement of the Hong Kong public servant concerned.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment and I am sure that the idea behind it will secure the agreement of the Government if not the actual substance of the amendment. The amendment will affect a limited number of people. It will affect a maximum of 700 people for a finite period, which is the time during which they will claim their pensions. The problem that I flagged up at Second Reading, and the reason for moving this amendment, was the concern among Hong Kong pensioners that their pensions in future might not be of the same worth as they now believe them to be. That is because of the figures which the Government used to work out the rate of exchange for the Hong Kong pension. I am talking about the divisor of 21 Hong Kong dollars to the pound. That was the divisor given in 1992, when the real exchange rate was 14.6 Hong Kong dollars to the pound. Many Hong Kong pensioners feel a degree of uncertainty. Obviously, with Hong Kong passing into Chinese rule there is a fear —it may not happen —that the value of the Hong Kong dollar may fall.
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that Hong Kong pensioners are protected. I cannot believe that the Government would not want that to be the case. The amendment is really a fall-back position so that pensioners will be no more than 20 per cent. worse off if the value of the Hong Kong dollar falls by more than that. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that that would not be the case, although he could not give examples. However, I should like him to explain the case of the Zimbabwean pensioners, who were protected but who, because of the fall in the Zimbabwean dollar, are now far worse off than they would have been. To give an example, a pension which would have been worth £10,000 per year in 1979 is worth about £500 at today's exchange rate.
The amendment is simple. I realise that the Government may not accept it, but I hope that they will say that they will look again at the issue rather than simply dismiss it. After a lifetime of service, Hong Kong pensioners should have the security of knowing that their pensions will not fall too far below their value today. That is the nub of the issue.
Another point is that, if the Hong Kong dollar fell significantly, the pensioners who would be the worst off would be those who earn the least at present, not those who earn very large sums of money. Therefore, the amendment would affect most the less well off. If those who earn the least during their working lives are then going to be hit the hardest when they are pensioners, we need to give some thought to providing them with a pension safety net. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Blaker: In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has moved his amendment, I do not intend to move my Motion. I agree with the noble Lord in believing that the Government's scheme for a divisor of 21 is not satisfactory. I support the noble Lord in the objectives of his amendment, as I understand them, but if, as I suspect, my noble friend is likely to say that the amendment is defective on technical grounds, I nevertheless hope that he will give the objectives of the amendment his sympathetic consideration.
On Second Reading, the point was made that Parliament has a particularly heavy responsibility to make sure that the pension safeguard scheme is fair because of the unusually large part that Hong Kong's civil servants have played in Hong Kong's successful development. This is because Hong Kong has never had a ministerial system. Those civil servants have also played a large part in ensuring that Hong Kong has never been a burden on the United Kingdom's aid budget. That point should be relevant to Her Majesty's Treasury.
In discussing the Government's scheme and the one I wish to put forward, I am afraid that I must be technical. In calculating the point at which the safeguard scheme begins to operate, as the noble Lord said, the Government propose to use an exchange rate of 21 Hong Kong dollars to the pound and a base date of 1st January 1992. That differs from the practice in almost every other colony where sovereignty has been transferred from the United Kingdom since the war, where the actual exchange rate at or near the date of transfer of sovereignty has been chosen. As the noble Lord said, the exchange rate on 1st January 1992 was 14.6 Hong Kong dollars to the pound, a rate which would be much more favourable to the pensioners than that which the Government propose.
The reason given by the Government for choosing a divisor of 21 is that Hong Kong Civil Service salaries and pensions are in general above the levels of those in the United Kingdom. Regarding the reason why the date of 1st January 1992 was chosen as the base date, as the Minister of State, Mr. Hanley, wrote to me in a recent letter which I shall not quote extensively, the Treasury needs the time to do its sums —although why it should

473
need five-and-a-half years I am not clear —and the Treasury would not be prepared to accept increases in pensions and salaries in Hong Kong after 1st January 1992. I do not find those reasons convincing, because if those factors are relevant in the case of Hong Kong, how was it that they were not relevant for the Treasury in the case of all the other colonies which have come to independence in the past 50 years?
I believe that a divisor of 21 is unfair because the methodology for arriving at a divisor of 21 is wrong. The methodology has been to divide the Hong Kong salary of a particular grade by the salary of the equivalent United Kingdom grade, and to multiply the resulting figure, which is called the "differential", by the number of Hong Kong civil servants in that grade. One then adds up all the resulting figures and divides them by the number of Hong Kong civil servants affected. That gives the figure of 21.
However, that figure of 21 conceals a divisor of 11.11 at one extreme of the civil service range for one grade and of 28.5 at the other extreme for another grade. My noble friend may say, as Mr. Hanley said, that any system of averaging is bound to leave some people doing better than others. That is true, but one does not have to have a system of averaging and, even if one has such a system, one should surely choose one which does not hurt the less well off. The Government's scheme does hurt the less well off, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out.
Let me give an example of what the Government's scheme does. It uses United Kingdom Civil Service Grade 7 as a parallel for 289 Hong Kong public servants ranging in salary from 500,000 Hong Kong dollars a year to 800,000 Hong Kong dollars a year. The Government argue that there has to be a system of broad groupings of this kind because there are not always direct equivalents in the United Kingdom Civil Service. That also is true, but that is because the Hong Kong Civil Service includes many jobs which, while in the public sector in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, are not in the United Kingdom Civil Service. I refer, for example, to marine jobs and to work connected with civil aviation, local government and medicine, as well as to the judiciary and prison officers.
However, no reasonable person would argue that, because Her Majesty's Government have failed to look into those other parts of the public service in the United Kingdom for more appropriate analogues, the bunching that I have mentioned of Hong Kong grades as analogues for United Kingdom Civil Service Grade 7 is a fair solution. No one who knows Hong Kong's cost-conscious Government would believe that it would pay salaries ranging from 500,000 Hong Kong dollars a year to 800,000 Hong Kong dollars a year for jobs of the same value.
If Hong Kong civil servants are over-paid relative to United Kingdom civil servants, one would expect the United Kingdom Government's scheme to favour, if anyone, the less well-paid Hong Kong civil servants —generally speaking that means those with a low differential compared with their UK counterparts. In fact, the scheme does the opposite: it means that those
474
with a low differential will be subsidising those with a high differential who are in general the highest paid. The scheme is kinder to the officer with a differential of 28.5 than one with a differential of 11.11.
The scheme would be described by a statistician, I am told, as absolutely biased. The fact that it favours some grades at the expense of others is not accidental—it is built into the system. OSPA cites one case as an example, where, under the government scheme, a Hong Kong pensioner whose pension would be protected on a salary base of £8,422 per year is compared with a so-called UK equivalent whose pension would be calculated on a salary base of £15,920—89 per cent. higher. That, OSPA tells me, is one case among many.
The fact that the Government scheme is regressive may help to explain why OSPA is opposed to it while serving officers in HMOCS have accepted it. The latter tend to have higher salary bases than the former, OSPA representing, as it does, those who have already retired. The Minister of State says that the government scheme would protect on average over 80 per cent. of the original purchasing power of pensions of existing pensioners, but if, as the Government also say, some will be protected at 100 per cent., that implies that some will be protected at 60 per cent.
OSPA believes that the right course would be to take a conversion rate of 14.6 to the pound. But if the Government are not prepared to do that, OSPA would favour a different system of averaging. That is known as median averaging. In that system, all the items to be averaged would be arranged in order of size, and the middle one is taken as the median. That would suggest a divisor closer to 18 rather than 21. That would have the advantages, first, that the extreme differentials at each end of the scale would not affect the median average; secondly, the bias against the lower paid would be reduced; and, thirdly, that scheme balances the calculations by disregarding the size of both the Hong Kong and UK pensioner populations.
These are complicated matters, and not easy to explain in debate. I am sorry to have spoken at some length, but I believe that a divisor of 18 has merit and deserves more study. I therefore urge my noble friend that the Government look again at this whole question.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: There is some difficulty in dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill. It is that what is written on the face of the Bill is all right; indeed, a great deal of it is admirable, and the sooner it is brought into operation the better. The problem lies with what the Bill allows to happen later; that is, in the Orders in Council, or one particular Order in Council. Through the courtesy of the Government in putting the details potentially for one of those Orders in Council for sterling safeguards, we know what is intended.
The amendment goes to the heart of the problem; that is, trying to devise a scheme which is seen by those concerned as being fair. For that reason, I am content, like the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, not to press the amendment that is in my name also.

475
The crux of the issue is surely that we need a scheme which deals correctly with the fears of those people who have been or are members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong who have provided excellent, exemplary service during their careers, and who, as they set out on those careers had certain expectations. As members of HMOCS they could, after all, see what happened in other dependent territories when those territories went to independence. When they looked at their own future they thought that it must be highly likely that there would be changes in 1997, but they had reasonable expectations that something similar would be done for them.
The difficulty is that, if one pursues what appears to be the present intention of using the divisor of 21 Hong Kong dollars to £1 sterling, one finishes up, as the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Blaker, have said, with a system that is not seen by those concerned as being fair. Much of that looks very abstract, so perhaps I may give one actual example. It is what would happen to an individual who was a senior police officer in Hong Kong and who I happen to know gave extremely good service during his career. He now rates a pension which would be the equivalent of £23,000 a year —a respectable, reasonable pension. If however it reached a stage when the guarantee was triggered, what he would finish up with would be a pension of just over £10,000 a year, which is very different indeed.
Of course there are a great many different individual cases that could be brought forward, but I want merely to make the point that many will be disadvantaged, and to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said: that those most disadvantaged are those on the lower end of the scale —those about whom we should be most concerned.
There are of course other ways of calculating differentials. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, has gone into admirable detail of one way of doing that —of producing a median instead of an average, and finishing up with the figure of 18 Hong Kong dollars to the pound sterling. I am sure that those concerned will argue primarily for the divisor of just over 14 Hong Kong dollars to the pound, which looks reasonable in an historical context, but I feel sure too that, if the Government were inclined to move to an alternative divisor —say, 18:1 —that would get rid of a large part of the concern felt by those involved. I would point out in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said, that it is not just those who are already retired who are concerned; it is those who are still in service. Those still in service have as a prime concern the desire that the arrangements for compensation should be put in place, but they are concerned also about the future of their own pensions.
It may be that the Minister can tell us in more detail about the arrangements for supplementary provision for overseas service —the so-called SPOS —and give us examples of how that will be brought in over a period of time to deal with part of this problem. However, we still return to the issue of producing a solution which is seen by those concerned as fair and equitable.
476
Perhaps I may say on behalf of my noble friend Lord MacLehose of Beoch that he is sorry that he is unable to be here. He has had an operation for glaucoma, and he is unable to come here from Scotland. He asked me to say, first, that he was sorry' not to be here; and, secondly, that he is supportive of the efforts to improve the conditions for members of HMOCS, and is concerned especially that those involved should not feel at the end of the day that they have been disadvantaged or discriminated against.
The Bill provides for two Orders in Council. One of them, on compensation and arrangements to help people to find alternative employment, needs to be brought in very soon. It is entirely admirable and desirable. I trust and hope that it will be brought in very soon. The second Order in Council on safeguarding the sterling value of pensions is, so far as I can see, not a matter of any urgency. Therefore, there is time for the Government to consider carefully what would be right. I support the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that the Government will look at these issues and take time to reach a solution which is seen by those concerned to be fair and correct.
Baroness Blackstone: I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, particularly in view of the fact that all three noble Lords who have spoken in support of it are particularly concerned about those Hong Kong Civil Service pensioners who have been on the lowest pensions and the lowest salaries. However, I regret that on these Benches we cannot support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, has just admitted, it is all rather abstract. One of the reasons for that is that it is exceedingly unlikely that there will be a catastrophic fall in the value of the Hong Kong dollar of the kind which is envisaged by the amendment.
I understand that for Hong Kong Civil Service pensioners to lose out on average, the Hong Kong dollar would have to fall to one-third or even less than one-third of its present value. With great respect, I do not believe that we can compare Hong Kong with Zimbabwe in these matters. At least I very much hope that the comparison is inappropriate. Therefore, we are talking about a hypothetical situation which is very unlikely to materialise. I hope that we can express rather greater confidence in the future of Hong Kong than this amendment implies.
I do not wish to go into detail as regards the amendment or why it does not seem to me to be appropriate. I shall leave that to the Minister. But perhaps I may assume that the Government will agree to consider the situation again if, due to some unforeseen circumstance, a circumstance which we must all hope and pray will never arise, there is a calamitous collapse of the Hong Kong dollar. As Clause 4 stands, it provides the flexibility to do that. Assuming that the Government are prepared to use that flexibility in this respect —and I believe that the Government have already indicated in another place that they would do so —there seems to me no need to alter this Bill on the basis of a totally hypothetical and, indeed, exceedingly unlikely change in the situation.

477
Moreover, the Bill is a compromise which was reached after five years of discussion and negotiation between the Association of Overseas Civil Servants in Hong Kong and the Government. Representatives of that association there believe that the Bill will provide reasonable security for civil servants in Hong Kong. They wish the legislation to be passed as proposed, as I understand it. Members of OSPA apparently think rather differently, but I do not believe that they have been directly involved in the negotiations.
I am not usually able to support the Government on matters of this kind but on this occasion I believe they have got it about right and their proposals are fair and reasonable.
Lord Chesham: As has already been said, this amendment is technically flawed. Hong Kong pensions are not paid in pounds sterling. They are and will continue to be paid in Hong Kong dollars. Also, the amendment makes no mention of dependants.
Putting aside those points, I am still uncertain what the noble Lord proposes. Is it his intention that the British Government should provide assistance to Hong Kong pensioners when the Hong Kong dollar/sterling exchange rate falls to 20 per cent. below the exchange rate at the date of the pensioner's retirement —in other words, if the pensioner had retired when the exchange rate was 10 Hong Kong dollars to the pound —or provide assistance if the rate fell to 12? Is the noble Lord suggesting that the scheme should protect 80 per cent. of the original sterling purchasing power of the pension? It is not clear from the amendment what is his intention. We believe that both of those solutions are flawed.
It may be useful, without repeating the points that I made on Second Reading, to make a few key observations about our proposed pension safeguard scheme. Hong Kong officers are not in the same position as their predecessors in other territories. Their pensions are not paid on the basis of a fixed rate of exchange with sterling and they receive on average pensions which are considerably higher than their UK counterparts and predecessors.
The British taxpayer will fund any liability under this scheme. The Government would be accused of irresponsibility if they did not seek to balance the interests of HMOCS and those of British taxpayers.
We are talking about a new benefit here. At the moment Hong Kong pensioners do not receive any protection of the sterling value of their pensions, and we are not asking HMOCS pensioners, many of whom are very well off, to give up any rise in their pensions as a result of an increase in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. Our proposal is essentially a free insurance scheme.
Our proposed scheme would ensure that over 75 per cent. of Hong Kong HMOCS pensioners would still be better off than their predecessors and their UK counterparts if there were a severe decline in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, the chances of the Hong Kong dollar falling substantially in value in the foreseeable future
478
are remote. That does not mean that we should not be prudent but it should give confidence to Hong Kong pensioners.
There has been a great deal of comment about the figure of 21-to-one. Obviously when an average is used some people are better off and others are worse off. Our calculations show that for comparability to be achieved for police grades in 1992 the divider should be set at 19-to-one and at 23-to-one for non-police grades. It is a fair criticism of the scheme that a divider set at 21-to-one offers better protection to non-police grades than it does to police grades. That is something about which we were concerned. Therefore, we suggested to the HMOCS Association that a range of safeguard rates could be set which would mirror better comparability than only one rate based on an average. For example, the pensions of Hong Kong police officers could be protected at 19-to-one and those of non-police officers at 23-to-one. OSPA were also aware of that possibility. However, the HMOCS Association rejected that on the grounds that it would be divisive among its members. OSPA has not asked us to pursue that. That is why the scheme has one safeguard rate rather than a range of rates which would reflect better comparability for different grades.
I turn to various points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned Zimbabwe. That has been a largely self-governing colony since the 1920s. The British Government do not accept any special responsibility for Zimbabwe public service pensioners as they do for the Hong Kong HMOCS pensioners. Therefore, there is no protection for Zimbabwe pensioners, who are much worse off as a consequence than would be the case for Hong Kong pensioners. They have no sterling safeguard.
My noble friend Lord Blaker asked why 1992 was chosen as a reference point for Hong Kong while no such point applied to other territories. The key reason is that in the case of other territories a fixed rate of exchange existed against sterling.
He said also that it is not fair to bunch grades. We could have tried to separate the grades, but to have done so would have resulted in many grades in Hong Kong being equated to grades lower than Grade 7. That would not have been to the benefit of Hong Kong pensioners.
We are aware of the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. I should point out that the pensioner concerned had already received compensation and a commuted pension of some £600,000. That is more than the capitalised pension of his UK counterpart.
The noble Lord also asked about the SPOS regulations. They ensure that, like UK pensions, increases in all HMOCS pensions keep pace with inflation in Britain. As most HMOCS pensions were taken over by the British Government after colonies became independent and are paid in sterling, applying SPOS is a simple matter of uprating an officer's pension from the date of his retirement in line with UK inflation.
However, application of the regulations is more difficult for Hong Kong, as the Hong Kong Government continue to award pension increases, and as exchange rate movements can affect the sterling value of Hong

479
Kong pensions. At present, any SPOS payments for Hong Kong pensions are reduced to take account of the sterling value of any pensions increase awarded by the Hong Kong Government, and also any increase in the total value of the pension due to exchange rate movements.
Hong Kong pensioners have complained that Hong Kong pension increases could be greater than the rate of inflation in Britain, but that the sterling value of their total pension could still decline and they would get no SPOS payments. We propose to amend the regulations to allow Hong Kong pension increases to be used to bring the Hong Kong pension up to its original sterling value. Only the balance left after that has been done would be taken into account to determine the amount of SPOS which should he paid. This amendment would help offset any pension losses arising from minor reductions in the sterling value of the Hong Kong dollar.
I should like to point out that the HMOCS Association is clear that it wants the Bill enacted as drafted. The Government have proposed a generous scheme. I believe that the principle of comparability which underlies it is fair and justified. I cannot accept the proposed amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for his response. It was not my intention to press the amendment; indeed, I neither foresaw a cataclysmic fall in the Hong Kong dollar, nor did I actually believe that the Bill was fundamentally flawed. The purpose of the amendment was really to give Hong Kong pensioners some kind of peace of mind which I had hoped the Minister would be able to provide.
I was surprised when the Minister said that he had to he responsible to the taxpayer because, throughout his speech, he made mention of the fact that the proposed provision would probably never be used in any event. Therefore, even if the Minister accepted the amendment, it would never, in theory, be triggered if the Hong Kong dollar did not fall. However, I believe that some degree of peace of mind has been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Most commercial firms, companies or organisations —both private or public —are diligent when it comes to complaints made about their products or services. They set up special sections, are imaginative in redressing wrongs and are quick to offer
480
compensation in terms of refunds or exchange of goods. In order to stay in business, they know that they have to cherish customers and care for clients. A speedy response when things go wrong is just as important as a new sale. If that is true of the competitive world, how much more important when the customer has little choice but is reliant on a monopoly provider. How much more important when the commodity is irreplaceable —someone's health, well-being or life —perhaps someone you love, perhaps even yourself.
In government, and in the NHS, we are very conscious of this, and, with initiatives to strengthen the influence and power of patients, we wish to strengthen the NHS complaints procedures.
The Bill before your Lordships' House will amend the Health Service Commissioners Act of 1993. It removes the statutory barriers which prevent the ombudsman from investigating complaints concerning family health services and clinical judgment exercised by all clinicians in the field. We are not seeking to make any radical changes to the nature of the commissioner's jurisdiction. What we are doing is to widen it, so that, if Parliament approves the measure, patients and their relatives will be able to complain to the ombudsman about all aspects of care and treatment provided by the NHS.
The proposed extension of the ombudsman's jurisdiction was recommended by the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in its first and sixth reports of the 1993 –94 Session. My right honourable friend Mrs Bottomley, who was then Secretary of State for Health, also established an independent committee under the chairmanship of Professor Alan Wilson to review the complaints system. Following extensive consultation, the Government announced their acceptance of the main recommendations in March 1995, and at the same time responded to the parallel recommendations made by the Select Committee.
The proposal to extend the ombudsman's jurisdiction, and the other recommendations made by the committee, were widely welcomed, as was the Government's intention to put them into effect. There was wide agreement that the new procedures would improve the way that complaints are handled at every level.
The recommendations were made against a background of increasing public dissatisfaction with the current arrangements. Many people found that the existing procedures simply did not meet their needs. They wanted to receive a speedy explanation of what had happened and, where appropriate, an apology and an assurance that the same mistake would not happen again. They were particularly frustrated by the current limits on the commissioner's jurisdiction. For instance, people found that he could investigate their complaint that a hospital doctor failed to communicate with them but not complaints about carelessness resulting in a wrong diagnosis. Neither could he investigate any aspect of their care by a GP.
Very often people react to a complaint by being negative and defensive. It is a natural reaction, but handling complaints responsibly and sensitively is a service which people expect from a quality organisation.

481
If complaints are investigated fully and objectively without automatically finding fault with staff, then valuable information can be gained about how to improve services to others. That is why we want to see a new system introduced.
The new procedure will have three tiers. This Bill deals only with the third tier. The first two tiers will be introduced through regulations and directions. The first tier will be called Local Resolution. It will involve the local provider seeking to resolve the problem directly with the complainant. Where possible, the provider will do that through a speedy and effective informal approach. Where necessary, Local Resolution will involve a more formal investigation or an attempt at conciliation. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, he may move to the second tier and ask a non-executive director of the trust, health authority or health board involved —who will be called a convener —to decide whether a three-person independent review panel should be set up to review the complaint. The panel will have access to independent professional advice on clinical issues. If both those fail, the complainant may activate the third tier and approach the ombudsman, who is completely independent both of the health service and of government.
If the Bill meets with your Lordships' approval and is passed by Parliament, we hope that its provisions can be brought into force on 1st April 1996, at the same time as the first and second tiers are implemented through subordinate legislation. We want all patients to have access to the third tier of the reformed complaints system as soon as possible.
The detailed provisions of the Bill are as follows. Clauses 1 and 2 add those professionals who were previously the responsibility of family health services authorities; that is, GPs, dentists, pharmacists and providers of NHS ophthalmic services to the list of those whom the Health Service Commissioner can investigate. These clauses also bring people in the independent sector who provide services to NHS patients explicitly within the commissioner's remit. Independent providers include private companies, independent professionals and voluntary organisations. The clauses set out the ombudsman's remit in respect of the investigation of complaints about family health service practitioners and independent providers.
Clause 3 brings Schedule 1, which deals with supplementary and consequential provisions relating to family health service and independent providers, into effect. Clause 4 brings the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland within the commissioner's jurisdiction and specifies certain functions which are excluded from investigation. This restores the position in Scotland to that in England and Wales where the Mental Health Act Commission is already within the commissioner's jurisdiction. The functions of the Mental Welfare Commission relating to the review and discharge of detained patients, which in England and Wales are carried out by the mental health review tribunals, will remain outside the commissioner's jurisdiction.
482
Clause 5 ensures that the first two tiers of the new procedures are exhausted before the commissioner can investigate a complaint but allows him discretion to investigate where he considers it unreasonable for the complainant to exhaust all other procedures. The new complaints system provides an opportunity for independent review within the health service. It would normally be reasonable for a complainant to have tried to resolve his complaint through this procedure before he refers it to the ombudsman. There may, however, be circumstances in which this would be unreasonable; for example, where there has been excessive delay in considering the complaint locally.
Clause 6 removes the statutory block which prevents the commissioner investigating complaints concerning clinical judgment. The 1993 Act prevents the commissioner questioning the merits of a decision taken without maladministration. In the past there had to be evidence of maladministration in a decision taken by a clinician in order for the commissioner to be able to uphold a complaint. For instance, he could investigate and uphold complaints about poor communication or poor record keeping but not about poor diagnosis. The clause allows for complaints to be investigated about decisions which arise solely as a result of clinical judgment.
In considering whether or not to uphold such a complaint the commissioner will need to take account of clinical advice; for example, as to whether the judgment was of an acceptable professional standard. The commissioner has made available to your Lordships a paper entitled Responsibilities of the Health Service Commissioner setting out how he proposes to exercise his new jurisdiction should Parliament approve the Bill. This paper sets out in some detail how he proposes to approach questions about clinical judgment, including the principles which he is minded to follow in seeking professional advice, and other issues arising from the provisions in the Bill. I commend the commissioner's paper to your Lordships' House.
Clause 7 removes the statutory barrier which prevents the commissioner investigating complaints about family health services. It also ensures that he cannot investigate action taken by a health authority or health board which is investigating an alleged breach of terms of service. This is in line with the existing provision in Section 7 of the 1993 Act which prevents the commissioner investigating personnel or disciplinary matters.
Clause 8 amends the provision in the 1993 Act which provides that the commissioner shall not investigate action taken in personnel matters to include service under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. This is simply a tidying up measure. Clause 8 also ensures that the commissioner can investigate action taken by a health service employer when operating a complaints procedure. The general public can complain to the commissioner about the way a complaint has been dealt with. Clause 8 ensures that NHS staff, those professionals contracted to work in the NHS, and those who work in the independent sector providing services for NHS patients, are given the same right in the interest of equity. Health service employees would, by virtue of the provisions in Clause 5, normally

483
need to invoke and exhaust established grievance procedures for dealing with such complaints before the ombudsman could investigate.
Clause 9 abolishes the requirement that a health authority, board or trust be given an opportunity to investigate a complaint. This is overtaken by the provisions in Clause 5 about the exhaustion of the NHS complaints procedures. Clause 10 requires the commissioner to send a report of an investigation to the relevant health authority, board or trust. This is simply to take account of the fact that health service bodies can be reconfigured during the period of an investigation. Clause 10 also fulfils the Government's commitment to implement certain recommendations made by the ombudsman's Select Committee. It removes the requirement to inform the relevant health authority, board or trust that the commissioner has decided not to investigate a complaint. It also requires the commissioner to lay his special, annual and other reports directly before Parliament rather than via the Secretary of State.
Clause 11 extends the exemption from giving evidence in proceedings to the commissioner's advisers. This is necessary because of the need to obtain advice from external advisers once the commissioner's remit is extended to include clinical judgment. The clause also allows the commissioner at his discretion to disclose information to the appropriate regulatory or health service body or employer where he considers it necessary for the protection of the health and safety of patients. At present any information that he discovers during the course of an investigation may not be passed to another person other than for the purposes of the investigation. Therefore if during the course of an investigation the commissioner discovers information which does not need to be disclosed in his report he may not disclose it to any person outside his own office. Clause 11 allows him to disclose information if it indicates that a person constitutes a threat to the health or safety of patients. In the interest of natural justice the clause requires the commissioner to inform the person about whom he has disclosed such information.
Clause 12 makes financial provision for the Bill. The provisions increase expenditure by the Health Service Commissioner's office under the 1993 Act. The cost is to be met by transfer from the relevant votes of the Department of Health and the Welsh and Scottish Offices. The costs arising from the Bill will be met from existing resources. Clause 13 gives effect to Schedule 2 which deals with repeals to the 1993 Act. Clause 14 makes provision for any Act arising from the Bill to be brought into force by means of commencement orders made by statutory instruments and for different parts of the Act to come into force at different times in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Clauses 15 and 16 deal with extent and citation respectively. The Bill only extends to Northern Ireland the provisions which amend the 1993 Act and which extend to Northern Ireland. These relate to the commissioner's procedures. The Bill has two schedules. Schedule 1 deals with amendments to the 1993 Act which are supplementary and consequential to the main
484
provisions of the Bill on family health service and independent providers. Schedule 2 sets out the repeals to the 1993 Act provided for in the Bill.
At the risk of disappointing the House when I am sure your Lordships are keen to know the full and detailed explanation of both schedules, I shall resist the temptation and only mention that there is a new provision in paragraph 2 to Schedule 1 which enables the commissioner to investigate contractual or commercial transactions by GP fundholders which relate to the purchase of services for NHS patients from independent providers.
I have tried to give a thorough and businesslike review of the Bill's detailed provisions. In conclusion, I would just like to say that generally complaints are welcomed. They are in any walk of life a way of maintaining standards and when properly dealt with can prevent litigation. We have to be conscious that the NHS can be destroyed by litigation or by the practice of unreasonable defensive medicine. People's expectations of perfect results grow daily but they cannot always be delivered. There is a fine line between negligence and reasonable expectation. We have doctors, nurses and scientists of extraordinary talent with worldwide reputations, but they cannot be everywhere. Medicine is an inexact science because every patient is different and every treatment is unique to each individual. We must all be aware of medicine's limitations and try to put the needs of many in front of our own; that is the only way that the NHS can work for the common good. I hope that the Bill will help some people who might otherwise have felt obliged to take legal proceedings in order to find out what happened and, where appropriate, obtain an apology and an assurance that things will be put right. We hope that the Bill strikes the right balance and is fair to all sides. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Cumberlege.)
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this short but somewhat complex Bill with great clarity. After all, clarity is one of the primary requirements of any successful complaints system, particularly one which deals with such a vast and labyrinthine organisation as the NHS.
Complaints about the NHS are rising; they were up by nearly 30 per cent. during the past year. At the same time, users of the health service are finding that in the fragmented structure of the internal market it is becoming difficult to pin down responsibility. Patients now report being passed from place to place and person to person across the purchaser/provider divide as they seek any redress for what may seem to them a rather simple complaint.
We on these Benches, therefore, welcome the Bill, which seeks to extend the role of the health ombudsman. Together with the proposals of the Wilson Report which the Minister has explained the Government have accepted and are implementing, it will unify and simplify the entire health service complaints procedure.

485
It is one NHS reform which is long overdue. The current situation is an unfriendly maze and was summarised critically, but I suspect correctly, in the 1993 report of the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which stated:
"The complaints system in the NHS seems designed for the convenience of providers of the service rather than complainants".
The Bill is certainly an important step towards increasing the rights of complainants and patients. At the same time, it should be seen as part of a general trend towards trying to improve the overall quality of service, to increase internal medical audit and to raise the standards of professional care. I see the Bill as part of the move that went with the Bill we discussed earlier in the year, which is now the Medical (Professional Performance) Act passed by your Lordships' House last Autumn.
I was pleased that in the revised guidance of the General Medical Council, which was published in October 1995 in the wake of the passage of that Act, great emphasis was laid on the duties of a doctor to respect, consult and inform patients. That guidance is an essential part of what the Royal College of Nursing has called a culture of change. It is a culture of change in the health service which seeks to involve service users as equal partners in improvements. In order to be effective a complaints system has to be seen to be open and fair. Patients must not feel that managers or professionals are being unsympathetic or placing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles in the path of what they see as a legitimate complaint. Equally, service providers must work in a culture where criticism can be viewed as constructive and where individual professionals are not afraid that a complaint will automatically mean that they are personally exposed and victimised. If we can get this right we can, as the Minister suggested, avoid the totally unhealthy atmosphere that exists, for example, in the United States of America where the shadow of legal malpractice suits seems to hang over every medical consultation.
The Bill amends the powers of the Health Service Commissioner so that he can consider complaints from the public in three major areas of NHS activity which have been previously excluded. They are the matters relating to the clinical judgment of doctors, nurses and other clinical professionals; complaints about family health service practitioners; and complaints about independent providers. We on these Benches welcome all these changes. It is a considerable extension of the ombudsman's powers which it is estimated will lead to an enormous increase in the volume of his work. As the Minister explained, further resources will be provided but there is concern about the level of those resources and the ambitious timetable which is designed to put all the new complaint systems in place by next April.
Today the noble Baroness was confident, and during the passage of the Bill in another place other Ministers were equally confident, that that could be successfully achieved. But it will be a matter of only a number of weeks if the Bill passes through your Lordships' House on schedule. I must tell your Lordships that that confidence is not universally echoed in the field. For
486
example, at a large meeting of local trusts and health authority chairmen in which I was involved last week there was surprising unawareness and lack of information about the details of this major innovation, which will hit people in the field at the same time as all the other organisational changes which will take place in April.
At the GP level, the BMA is emphasising that a considerable amount of GP and staff time will be necessary to be used in training, setting up, operating and monitoring practice-based procedures. The General Medical Services Committee of the BMA is, I understand, advising GPs to bid for additional practice staff funding to cover the staff time that will be spent in dealing with these procedures. The BMA has rightly challenged the claim made on 19th December in Committee in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary of State for Health that:
"the total annual cost arising from the expanded legislation will be £100,000 to doctors as a whole and £10 per practice".
The BMA states that it is quite sure that this estimate of £10 per practice is ridiculously low.
I hope, therefore, that having brought forward these proposals, perhaps rather belatedly, the Government have left sufficient time for thorough staff training and systems testing and will provide adequate additional resources. It would be a great pity if these useful reforms themselves became the subjects of complaints because they were misunderstood or inadequately implemented. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships further on that point when she replies.
The extension of the powers of the Health Service Commissioner which have caused most discussion, in particular among medical professionals, are those in Clause 6. That brings into his jurisdiction complaints about clinical judgment. Mr. Reid, the ombudsman, states that,
"it would be helpful if staff in all professions look at complaints not as a personal affront but as a valuable contribution to audit and to improvements in service".
He is, of course, quite right but the delicate supremacy of clinical judgment is near to the heart of medical ethics and this new power will be extremely difficult to enforce legitimately and fairly. It is an area in which it is almost impossible to include precise guidance in primary legislation. I am sure that the noble Baroness will remember the debates that we had during the passage of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill about how to define in that context adequate or inadequate professional performance. Precisely the same kind of difficulties seem to arise here. After all, clinical judgment necessarily involves personal, individual decisions which may well be taken by health professionals at times of crisis or stress both for the patient and the professional involved.
If the result of a clinical judgment leads to a complaint it may well be because in what were considered to be the best interests of the patient a doctor or nurse took a risk or stepped outside normal practice and did not succeed. It is extraordinarily difficult to see how one can second guess those kind of situations, particularly many months after what may have been a

487
dangerous emergency. As the noble Baroness remarked in her opening speech, the health ombudsman has published an extremely helpful paper which includes in paragraphs 42 to 49 his description of how he will deal with the issues of clinical complaints. On the other hand, he does not actually address the essential point about how these issues may be contained in any form of precise guidance to the profession.
In raising these issues I must assure your Lordships that I do not in any way oppose the proposed extension of the powers to clinical judgment, but those who are investigated must be properly judged by their professional peers with scrupulous fairness. I therefore welcome the proposals which the ombudsman has already published about the clinical advice he will seek in these new cases. The RCN has noted the importance of including the voice of nurses in that advice and is rightly pleased that the plan is to recruit nursing staff, and indeed midwives and health visitors, to the ombudsman's office.
I understand that the BMA is already discussing with that office a range of issues about the medical assessors who will be empowered to investigate clinical complaints and, importantly, the level of proof needed before a complaint is upheld. The BMA is also concerned in raising the issue of confidentiality of a complainant's medical information if a clinical judgment case is to be thoroughly investigated. It is important that at all stages of any procedure the complainant must be informed as to whom his or her personal medical information is being disclosed; and a procedure should be in place for the complainant to be invited to give valid consent for that information to be disclosed.
Perhaps when the Minister replies she could give your Lordships a progress report about how the discussions with the BMA on these and other issues are progressing.
Another potential problem is the difficulty of drawing a clear line between clinical and management judgements. For example, if we take recent headline-making cases where a joint clinical/managerial decision has been taken to transfer a critically ill patient to hospital B because of a lack of intensive care beds in hospital A it is, at least in common sense terms, hard to insist that the decision is taken either primarily on clinical grounds or primarily on managerial grounds. Equally, if a doctor judges that a diagnosis does not require using an MRI scanner, in part at least because the local scanner is unavailable —as happened in another rather notorious recent case —is he clinically culpable or is the complaint more properly addressed to the health service administration? It seems likely that many complaints may be in equally murky territory and it is not immediately clear what impact the blurring of those boundaries will have on the ombudsman's procedures.
There may be a case for instituting a new power to investigate management judgement as well as clinical judgement; or perhaps the Department of Health and the health ombudsman think that that automatically falls into the category of maladministration. It is important that those distinctions as well as those overlaps are made clear, but as yet I do not think that that is totally covered by the proposals.
488
As the Minister said, Clauses 1 and 2 add family health service providers and independent providers to the list of those whom the ombudsman may investigate. The addition of family health services is welcome, particularly since the abolition of the old FHSA procedures from April make it vital to underpin local procedures for complaints against GPs, dentists, pharmacists, and so on. I echo the Minister in saying that I hope that under the new system most of those complaints will be locally resolved.
The inclusion of independent providers is important. As your Lordships know, local health purchasing agencies increasingly use private providers for services like nursing homes and to clear waiting lists for surgical procedures. However, as I understand it, independent providers will not be involved in the local initial stage of the new complaints procedure. But NHS patients being treated in the independent sector may take their case to the ombudsman. It seems on the face of it unfortunate that the speedy local resolution of complaints which will now be offered in the first two stages of the new system to those treated in NHS facilities will not be offered to those treated by independent providers.
Paragraph 60 of the ombudsman's document states that independent providers will be required under their contracts with health service bodies or GP fundholders to have in-house arrangements for investigating complaints equivalent to those of health bodies' local resolution procedures. But it does not say how those will be instituted, what their legal force will be, or indeed how any organisation which does not institute those procedures can be policed. Again, perhaps the Minister will help us in her summing up by giving further guidance on that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said in introducing the Bill, it represents only one, although a significant, part of the general reform of the NHS complaints procedure. I regret that your Lordships have not had the opportunity to consider the new system as a whole and perhaps explicitly to consider the interrelation of the new complaints procedures before us together with the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill. They are all part of an overall attempt to streamline and clarify the organisation and at the same time to raise overall levels of quality.
Those are laudable aims which we support. We shall return to our detailed concerns about some aspects of specific provisions of the Bill at Committee stage. There is no better summary of our position than that of the health service ombudsman himself who, in his last report to Parliament, said:
"Aspirations about more effective complaints handling are hot air. They need now to be matched by performance".
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for so clearly and succinctly introducing the Bill, particularly in view of the marathon afternoon session that she has had in dealing with the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill. It has been a hard day's work.

489
I agree to a large extent with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said. We on these Benches welcome the Bill. It is about the right of patients to have a clear-cut and easily understood complaints procedure which makes the NHS responsive, accessible and, above all, accountable to the people who use the service. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, in legislating we must ensure that the Bill also creates a fair system for the professionals involved in the service. That is important if the system is to work.
The extension of the health commissioner's jurisdiction to cover family health service providers, dentists, ophthalmic providers and independent care providers who care for NHS patients under contact with health authorities and health boards, as well as GP fundholders, is welcome. One might almost say that it is long overdue. The streamlined three-tier system for local resolution of a complaint, or the appointment if necessary of a three-person independent panel, should enable most complaints to be resolved locally; but, most importantly, it leaves the complainant with the right to take his or her complaint to the ombudsman if not satisfied with the answer. The overriding requirement for the new procedure to be a success is for there to be adequate publicity so that patients are aware of their rights under the new system. Patients have been very confused about their rights under the previous complaints procedure. This Bill is the opportunity to make it perfectly clear what everyone's rights and duties are. It is important that it is widely publicised.
Another point which we on these Benches welcome is that from now on the commissioner is to lay both his special and his annual reports before Parliament rather than merely reporting to the Secretary of State.
However, some aspects of the implementation of the new system give cause for concern. First, the increase in the commissioner's workload is bound to be substantial. Even without the additions in the Bill, his workload increased last year by almost 30 per cent. That has resulted in investigations taking longer to complete. In 1994 the average length of investigations was 45 weeks but in 1995 it had grown to 60 weeks. By any standards, that is an unacceptably long time for both professionals and patients to have to wait for the results of an inquiry.
I am aware that the commissioner is being given an additional 130 staff, but a large number of them are needed purely to reduce the time taken for each investigation at the moment. The staff will not all be available for the new duties.
The need for the ombudsman's powers to include clinical judgment means that he will have to have access to independent clinical advice from a range of health professionals, including nurses. That clinical advice will take place at two levels. The ombudsman will need advice to screen complaints in order to determine whether they are of a clinical nature, to identify which parties are likely to be involved in an investigation and to decide whether the complaint is within his remit. Once a complaint is taken up, the ombudsman will again need professional clinical advice. That will all require extra staff within his department. I agree with the noble
490
Baroness, Lady Jay. I am delighted that the independent clinical advice will include advice from nurses and midwives. We also welcome the ombudsman's right to refer certain cases to the General Medical Council.
What will be the cost to GPs, dentists and ophthalmic practitioners of implementing the new system? At Committee stage in another place the Minister claimed,
"that the total annual cost arising from the expanded legislation will be £100,000 to doctors as a whole and £10 per practice". —[Official Report, 19/12/95; col. 12.]
I believe that £10 per practice is a ridiculously low estimate of what it will cost considering the staff time that will have to be taken up in training and setting up operating and monitoring practices based upon complaints procedures.
General practitioners will receive guidance from the NHS Executive on practice-based procedures which will include model guidance for practice staff. It will also mean that they will have to put up publicity notices and information leaflets and produce complaint report forms. All that will be costly for general practitioners. It is too much for anyone to believe that the cost will be only £10 per practice.
Lastly, I have a matter which I would like to discuss and will probably raise again at Committee stage: the possibility of a complainant taking legal action should not prevent the commissioner from investigating a case. Complainants will want an investigation by the commissioner. They will want to pursue a court case independently in order to seek damages. They should not be prevented from doing so. The two actions achieve completely different results. The commissioner's investigation can offer an explanation, make recommendations to the health service body and offer assurances that it will be dealt with. Legal action cannot do that, but it can provide financial compensation. So the outcomes are very different. My concern is that a complainant who wants to take legal action for negligence will be debarred from doing so because of the length of time —60 weeks —that the investigation of a complaint might take. He might be debarred for overrunning the time for taking legal action. It should therefore be considered whether it would be possible for a complainant to take action in both directions at the same time.
I look forward to the detailed discussion of amendments in Committee. I welcome the Bill. It must create the right climate for co-operation between professionals and patients in the National Health Service.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am pleased to add a warm welcome to this Bill, and to add my thanks to those already expressed to my noble friend for her lucid and succinct introduction. I must declare a professional interest as vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, which has given its support to the principles and provisions of the Bill.
First, I endorse the contribution that the proposed legislation will make towards ensuring accountability in the provision of health care. Patients, clients and their

491
families are inherently vulnerable. They may find great difficulty in mustering enough courage to initiate a complaint in the unhappy event of maladministration in the provision of care, or of an error in clinical judgment. Such natural reluctance to challenge the often daunting system of the health care establishment may be exacerbated by complicated procedures.
Therefore, the provisions of this Bill, together with proposed changes to complaints procedures, are intended to introduce a single, simplified and comprehensive complaints procedure covering all providers of health care, including family health services and the independent sector. They should make it easier for any inadequacies in the quality of care to be identified, for appropriate responses to be made to those who have suffered as a result, for problems to be rectified and for recurrence of problems to be prevented. The provisions are thus a very important part of a commitment to enhance quality of care and to ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained for all who use our health services.
While warmly welcoming the Bill, I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend for clarification on two issues: training and mixed sector complaints. I turn first to training, an issue already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. The health service commissioner's extended powers are to be seen as part of the package of reforms of the complaints system. It is the intention to introduce the other two stages in the system by 1st April this year, on the same date as the new health authorities are to be established. This is a massive agenda for the health service on a very tight timescale.
It is clearly important that there should be a speedy and successful introduction of the new, simplified system. However, in many parts of the National Health Service it will require a cultural change in the ways in which complaints are managed. In the past, as my noble friend has already recognised, there has naturally sometimes been a tendency to deal with complaints negatively and defensively. In future, they are to be seen in a more positive light, as part of the assessment of the quality of care and as a tool to improve service to patients.
It is therefore essential that a culture of openness be encouraged. Staff should be encouraged to help patients to make their views known if the care they receive is unsatisfactory. So nurses, doctors and other staff will need training in the new system if it is to work and if they are to respond positively to complaints and learn from them. Will my noble friend therefore give a little information on what training and resources will he available to ensure that the new system will he implemented quickly and successfully?
The second area is that of mixed sector complaints —a variation on a theme already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. The ombudsman's powers cover those providing health services. However, the dividing line between health and social services is often blurred, particularly, for example, in the area of continuing care.
Responsibility for patient care may not always he clear-cut. For example, if a patient moves from residential nursing care provided by a health authority
492
to accommodation provided by a local authority and develops pressure sores, there may he a dispute as to when the problem began and who was the responsible authority. In such a case there might be a lack of clarity as to who would be responsible for convening the complaints panel. I therefore ask my noble friend what the ombudsman would be able to do if there were problems with such a mixed sector complaint of this nature.
I conclude by strongly supporting the Bill and assuring your Lordships that the Royal College of Nursing warmly welcomes it. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should be commended for bringing it forward and I hope that it will pass through all its stages with maximum speed, so that its important provisions can come into effect on 1st April and its objectives be achieved as soon as possible, to the benefit of all who receive health care and all who have responsibility for its provision.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. I was a few minutes late advising the Whips Office that I should like to speak. In my greenness, I did not realise how sharply the list of speakers was removed from the clipboard at noon. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for my failure to ensure my name was on the list.
I suspect that the Bill is uncontroversial in its intent and largely in its approach. Representations have been made on various aspects of the Bill. I received parliamentary briefing from the National Consumer Council, which I wish to consider with care. As my noble friend the Minister will see —I have given a copy of the letter to her officials —the briefing relates to one or two points of detail. They include the provision of certain information to the complainant as well as to the body complained of in an area which must be fraught with difficulty, not least because of the complexity which most treatments must represent to a layman, and the provision of monitoring and review in the first three years of operation under the commissioner's new jurisdiction.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those points at a later stage of the Bill. I wish the Bill a fair wind.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their consideration of the Bill at this time. I am very appreciative of the welcome that all your Lordships have given it. The provisions of the Bill reflect the deliberations of honourable Members in another place as well as the findings of the independent committee appointed to review the subject. The Ombudsman's Select Committee and the Wilson Committee on NHS complaints procedures, having heard extensive evidence from patients, relatives, practitioners and staff working in the NHS, and indeed others, both recommend that complaints concerning clinical judgment and those about family health services should be brought within the ombudsman's jurisdiction.

493
The Government, following extensive consultation, were left in no doubt that those measures have very broad acceptance not only among the general public but with professional bodies, patient representative groups, NHS bodies and others. So we are at one on all that.
In future, the vast majority of complaints will be resolved at local level. That is our intention. I am glad that the noble Baroness feels that we should aim for that. We believe it right that the public should be able to discuss their concerns directly with those responsible for the services and get answers on the spot.
We are also injecting a significant amount of independence. A lay person will be involved in every decision as to whether to establish a review panel and the panel will always have a majority of independent members. I believe that we have struck about the right balance. We are avoiding creating a whole new complaints bureaucracy which would rob the NHS of all responsibility for putting things right. On the other hand, we are not allowing it complete autonomy which could lead to a reluctance to acknowledge mistakes and learn lessons for the future.
I wish to address some of the points raised during the debate. I agree very much with the view expressed by the noble Baroness that at the moment the complaints system is an unfriendly maze. We also accept that the timetable is very challenging. We have a lot of work to do before 1st April if we are to have the service ready for the changes. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that we have to inform users. It is no good having a good system if people do not understand that it is there and how to use it.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that our reforms have fragmented the NHS —I am sure she would not expect me to. On the contrary; we believe that they clarify responsibilities in a way that has never been done before and our proposals about complaints are similarly clear, specifying the precise roles of GP practices, NHS trusts and health authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was concerned about the time it takes at the moment for the health service commissioner to deal with complaints. That is something with which we very much agree. Indeed, I know that Mr. William Reid is addressing that matter at the moment to see how he can streamline his procedures without losing their valued and deserved reputation for thoroughness. Clearly there is a balance to be struck.
With regard to litigation, the noble Baroness was concerned that sometimes the delay can prevent people from going to court or from going to the health service
494
commissioner. I understand that the commissioner is unable to take on a case when it is already before the courts. But often, when it comes to deciding what route a complainant should take —a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay; that is, whether a complainant should go to the ombudsman, to the GMC or to the courts —the test is to ascertain what a complainant is trying to achieve. Once the complainant has made that clear, then the route also becomes clear. However, I do not want to give the false impression that it is always clear what is a clinical case and what is a case that should be dealt with through disciplinary procedures; there will always be grey areas.
My noble friend Lady Cox asked a specific question in that regard, concerning a mixed complaint involving social services. There is a provision in the 1993 Act to require consultation between the health service ombudsman and the local government ombudsman where he receives a complaint of that sort to ensure that the complainant has access to the right person. I agree with my noble friend that it is an increasingly complex area, and the department is in consultation with both the health service and the local government ombudsmen to ensure that complainants know which route is the most appropriate.
I am conscious that a number of issues have been raised and I am sure that we shall return to many of them during the Committee stage of the Bill. Perhaps I may address the question of resources, because I know that it is one that concerns your Lordships. We have agreed with the ombudsman's office the amount of money that he is assessing in the early stage and there is a transfer of £5 million rising to £6.5 million. That is to some extent an estimate, in that we do not know exactly how many complaints there will be. Though our estimates allow for a 10 per cent. increase, we shall need constantly to review the resources necessary for this new procedure and sometimes the movement may be downwards, though I suspect sometimes it may be upwards.
I hope that I have addressed most of the points raised. I look forward to my noble friend's detailed points when it comes to the Committee stage. Perhaps I may conclude by paying tribute to Mr. William Reid. He has an extremely difficult job and he does it with great thoroughness. He is highly respected, both within the NHS and by the public as a whole. It is right that we should be seeking to extend his role into clinical areas and thereby, I hope, reduce the acceleration towards litigation. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  Hong Kong and Beijing: Foreign Secretary's Visit
  Hong Kong and Beijing: Foreign Secretary's Visit
  Turkey: Alleged Human Rights Abuses
  Turkey: Alleged Human Rights Abuses
  Sudan: Release of Political Prisoners
  Sudan: Release of Political Prisoners
  ABM Treaty
  ABM Treaty
  Magistrates: Resignations
  Magistrates: Resignations
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Nursery Education and Corporal Punishment
  Nursery Education and Corporal Punishment
  Local Government Ombudsman Service: Review
  Local Government Ombudsman Service: Review
  Crown Copyright
  Crown Copyright
  Asylum Seekers: Representation at Hearings
  Asylum Seekers: Representation at Hearings
  Firearms Consultative Committee: Recommendations
  Firearms Consultative Committee: Recommendations
  South West Trains Franchise Agreement
  South West Trains Franchise Agreement
  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising: Running Costs
  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising: Running Costs